Ryzen 7 5700GE vs Xeon E5-2658 v4

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2658 v4
2016, $1,832
14 cores / 28 threads, 105 Watt
8.19
Ryzen 7 5700GE
8 cores / 16 threads, 35 Watt
12.19
+48.8%

Ryzen 7 5700GE outperforms Xeon E5-2658 v4 by a considerable 49% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1042710
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.56no data
Market segmentLaptopDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon E5AMD Ryzen 7
Power efficiency8.3637.31
DesignerIntelAMD
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Zen 3
Release date20 June 2016 (9 years ago)no data
Launch price (MSRP)$1,832no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE 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 cores14 (Tetradeca-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads2816
Base clock speedno data3.2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.3 GHz4.6 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/sno data
Multiplier2332
L1 cacheno data512 KB
L2 cache3.5 MB4 MB
L3 cache35 MB16 MB
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die size306.18 mm2no data
Number of transistors4700 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE 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)no data
Socketno dataSocket AM4
Power consumption (TDP)105 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
TSX+-

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Maximum memory size1,536 GBno data
Maximum memory bandwidthno data51.196 GB/s

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Vega 8

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes40no data

Synthetic benchmarks

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.

Xeon E5-2658 v4 8.19
Ryzen 7 5700GE 12.19
+48.8%

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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.

Xeon E5-2658 v4 14434
Samples: 6
Ryzen 7 5700GE 21484
+48.8%
Samples: 20

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.

Xeon E5-2658 v4 679
Ryzen 7 5700GE 2009
+196%

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.

Xeon E5-2658 v4 8111
+13.9%
Ryzen 7 5700GE 7123

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.19 12.19
Physical cores 14 8
Threads 28 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 105 Watt 35 Watt

Xeon E5-2658 v4 has 75% more physical cores and 75% more threads.

Ryzen 7 5700GE, on the other hand, has a 48.8% higher aggregate performance score, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 200% lower power consumption.

The AMD Ryzen 7 5700GE is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon E5-2658 v4 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2658 v4 is a mobile workstation processor while Ryzen 7 5700GE is a desktop one.

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 E5-2658 v4
Xeon E5-2658 v4
AMD Ryzen 7 5700GE
Ryzen 7 5700GE

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

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


4.7 7 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2658 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 38 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 5700GE on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 7 5700GE, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.