Athlon II X4 640 vs Xeon E5-1680 v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-1680 v2 outperforms Athlon II X4 640 by a whopping 462% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 913 | 2167 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 2.92 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) | Propus (2009−2011) |
| Release date | 10 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 11 May 2010 (14 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $80 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640 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 cores | 8 (Octa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Bus rate | 0 GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 25 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 341 mm2 | 169 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 85 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,800 million | 300 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.65–1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640 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 configuration | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | AM3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | + | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| Status | Launched | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-800, DDR3-1066, DDR3-1333, DDR3-1600, DDR3-1866 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 256 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
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.
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.20 | 1.46 |
| Recency | 10 September 2013 | 11 May 2010 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 4 |
| Threads | 16 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Xeon E5-1680 v2 has a 461.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 300% more threads, and a 104.5% more advanced lithography process.
Athlon II X4 640, on the other hand, has 36.8% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-1680 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon II X4 640 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-1680 v2 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon II X4 640 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1680 v2 and Athlon II X4 640, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
