Xeon E5-2683 v4 vs EPYC 9754

VS

Aggregate performance score

EPYC 9754
2023
128 cores / 256 threads, 360 Watt
65.64
+467%
Xeon E5-2683 v4
2016
16 cores / 32 threads, 120 Watt
11.57

EPYC 9754 outperforms Xeon E5-2683 v4 by a whopping 467% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing EPYC 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking11692
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.072.85
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataIntel Xeon E5
Power efficiency16.638.79
Architecture codenameBergamo (2023)Broadwell (2015−2019)
Release date13 June 2023 (1 year ago)20 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$11,900$1,846

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2683 v4 has 166% better value for money than EPYC 9754.

Detailed specifications

EPYC 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4 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 cores12816 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads25632
Base clock speed2.25 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.1 GHz3 GHz
Bus typeno dataQPI
Bus rateno data2 × 9.6 GT/s
Multiplierno data21
L1 cache64 KB (per core)no data
L2 cache1 MB (per core)4 MB
L3 cache256 MB (shared)40 MB
Chip lithography5 nm14 nm
Die size8x 73 mm2456.12 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data84 °C
Number of transistors71,000 million7200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-

Compatibility

Information on EPYC 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4 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 configuration22 (Multiprocessor)
SocketSP5FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)360 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by EPYC 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4. 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+
TSX-+
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data+
PAEno data46 Bit
Precision Boost 2+no data

Security technologies

EPYC 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4 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 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4 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 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR5DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400
Maximum memory sizeno data1.5 TB
Max memory channelsno data4
Maximum memory bandwidthno data76.8 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 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4.

PCIe version5.03.0
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 9754 65.64
+467%
Xeon E5-2683 v4 11.57

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 9754 100460
+468%
Xeon E5-2683 v4 17700

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 65.64 11.57
Recency 13 June 2023 20 June 2016
Physical cores 128 16
Threads 256 32
Chip lithography 5 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 360 Watt 120 Watt

EPYC 9754 has a 467.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 700% more physical cores and 700% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon E5-2683 v4, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 9754 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2683 v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between EPYC 9754 and Xeon E5-2683 v4, 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 9754
EPYC 9754
Intel Xeon E5-2683 v4
Xeon E5-2683 v4

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.


3.7 36 votes

Rate EPYC 9754 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 551 vote

Rate Xeon E5-2683 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about EPYC 9754 or Xeon E5-2683 v4, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.