i9-14900F vs Xeon E5-2650L v3

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2650L v3
2014
12 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
7.70
Core i9-14900F
2024
24 cores / 32 threads, 65 Watt
31.24
+306%

Core i9-14900F outperforms Xeon E5-2650L v3 by a whopping 306% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking944131
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data52.48
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Architecture codenameHaswell-EP (2014−2015)Raptor Lake-R (2023−2024)
Release date8 September 2014 (10 years ago)8 January 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$524

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)24 (Tetracosa-Core)
Threads2432
Base clock speed1.8 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz5.6 GHz
Bus rate9.6 GT/sno data
L1 cache64K (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache30 MB (shared)36 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size356 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperature64 °C100 °C
Number of transistors2,600 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)65 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
StatusDiscontinuedLaunched
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key++
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size768 GB192 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth68 GB/s89.6 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F.

PCIe version3.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes4016

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 E5-2650L v3 7.70
i9-14900F 31.24
+306%

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 E5-2650L v3 11880
i9-14900F 48173
+305%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.70 31.24
Recency 8 September 2014 8 January 2024
Physical cores 12 24
Threads 24 32

i9-14900F has a 305.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, and 100% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.

The Core i9-14900F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2650L v3 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2650L v3 is a server/workstation processor while Core i9-14900F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2650L v3 and Core i9-14900F, 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 E5-2650L v3
Xeon E5-2650L v3
Intel Core i9-14900F
Core i9-14900F

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.


4.4 60 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2650L v3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 75 votes

Rate Core i9-14900F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2650L v3 or Core i9-14900F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.