Xeon E5-2699 v3 vs EPYC 7262

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 7262
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 155 Watt
13.08
+1.7%
Xeon E5-2699 v3
2014
18 cores / 36 threads, 145 Watt
12.86

EPYC 7262 outperforms Xeon E5-2699 v3 by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking577595
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation10.04no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesAMD EPYCno data
Power efficiency7.948.35
Architecture codenameZen 2 (2017−2020)Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
Release date7 August 2019 (5 years ago)8 September 2014 (10 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$575no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores8 (Octa-Core)18 (Octadeca-Core)
Threads1636
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.4 GHz3.6 GHz
Bus rateno data9.6 GT/s
Multiplier32no data
L1 cache96 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)256K (per core)
L3 cache128 MB (shared)45 MB (shared)
Chip lithography7 nm, 14 nm22 nm
Die size192 mm2356 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data77 °C
Number of transistors3,800 million2,600 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration2 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketSP3FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)155 Watt145 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data+
Turbo Boost Technologyno data2.0
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data+
PAEno data46 Bit
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3 are enumerated here.

AMD-V+-
VT-dno data+
VT-xno data+
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4 Eight-channelDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133
Maximum memory size4 TiB768 GB
Max memory channels84
Maximum memory bandwidth204.763 GB/s68 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/Ano data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3.

PCIe version4.03.0
PCI Express lanes12840

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

EPYC 7262 13.08
+1.7%
Xeon E5-2699 v3 12.86

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

EPYC 7262 20779
+1.7%
Xeon E5-2699 v3 20430

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 13.08 12.86
Recency 7 August 2019 8 September 2014
Physical cores 8 18
Threads 16 36
Chip lithography 7 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 155 Watt 145 Watt

EPYC 7262 has a 1.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 214.3% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon E5-2699 v3, on the other hand, has 125% more physical cores and 125% more threads, and 6.9% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 7262 and Xeon E5-2699 v3, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD EPYC 7262
EPYC 7262
Intel Xeon E5-2699 v3
Xeon E5-2699 v3

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


2.9 21 vote

Rate EPYC 7262 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 899 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2699 v3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 7262 or Xeon E5-2699 v3, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.