Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U vs Xeon E5-2609 v4

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2609 v4
2016
8 cores / 8 threads, 85 Watt
3.56
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U
2024
8 cores / 16 threads, 28 Watt
15.64
+339%

Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U outperforms Xeon E5-2609 v4 by a whopping 339% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1546461
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.45no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5no data
Power efficiency3.8250.93
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Hawk Point (2024)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)16 April 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$306no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U 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)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed1.7 GHz3.3 GHz
Boost clock speed1.7 GHz5.1 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 6.4 GT/sno data
Multiplier17no data
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache20 MB16 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm4 nm
Die size246.24 mm2178 mm2
Maximum core temperature74 °Cno data
Number of transistors3200 Million25,000 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U 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)1
SocketFCLGA2011FP7
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt28 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866DDR5
Maximum memory size1.5 TBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth59.7 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon 780M

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes4020

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.

Xeon E5-2609 v4 3.56
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U 15.64
+339%

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.

Xeon E5-2609 v4 5443
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U 23935
+340%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.56 15.64
Recency 20 June 2016 16 April 2024
Threads 8 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 4 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 28 Watt

Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U has a 339.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more threads, a 250% more advanced lithography process, and 203.6% lower power consumption.

The Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2609 v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2609 v4 and Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, 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.


Intel Xeon E5-2609 v4
Xeon E5-2609 v4
AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U
Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U

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.


1.3 16 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2609 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.2 17 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2609 v4 or Ryzen 7 PRO 8840U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.