Athlon 300U vs Xeon E5-2680 v4

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 120 Watt
11.51
+353%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by a whopping 353% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking6321659
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation25.76no data
Market segmentWorkstationLaptop
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)AMD Athlon
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Raven Ridge 2 (2019)
Release date10 March 2016 (8 years ago)6 January 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,745no data
Current price$141 (0.1x MSRP)$486

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads284
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3.3 GHz
Bus support9.6 GT/s / QPIno data
L1 cache448 KB128K (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache35 MB4 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size306 mm2209.78 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Number of transistors4700 Million4500 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011FP5
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt15 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+no data
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
StatusLaunchedno data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection-no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4 Dual-channel
Maximum memory size1.5 TB64 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s38.397 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon RX Vega 3

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4012

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 E5-2680 v4 11.51
+353%
Athlon 300U 2.54

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 353% based on our aggregate benchmark results.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 17795
+354%
Athlon 300U 3923

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 354% in Passmark.

Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core

Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.

Benchmark coverage: 20%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 3707
Athlon 300U 3968
+7%

Athlon 300U outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 7% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.

Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.

Benchmark coverage: 19%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 30922
+254%
Athlon 300U 8724

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 254% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core

Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1657
+438%
Athlon 300U 308

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 438% in Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core.

Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core

Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.

Benchmark coverage: 15%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 100
Athlon 300U 119
+19%

Athlon 300U outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 19% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.

TrueCrypt AES

TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 9.4
+395%
Athlon 300U 1.9

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 395% in TrueCrypt AES.

WinRAR 4.0

WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 6323
+290%
Athlon 300U 1623

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 290% in WinRAR 4.0.

x264 encoding pass 2

x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 79
+328%
Athlon 300U 19

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 328% in x264 encoding pass 2.

x264 encoding pass 1

x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.  

Benchmark coverage: 13%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 137
+54.2%
Athlon 300U 89

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 54% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 26961
+340%
Athlon 300U 6134

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 340% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 2275
Athlon 300U 2919
+28.3%

Athlon 300U outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 28% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 21194
+268%
Athlon 300U 5763

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Athlon 300U by 268% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 2961
Athlon 300U 3213
+8.5%

Athlon 300U outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 9% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.51 2.54
Recency 10 March 2016 6 January 2019
Physical cores 14 2
Threads 28 4
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 15 Watt

The Xeon E5-2680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon 300U in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon 300U is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Athlon 300U, 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 E5-2680 v4
Xeon E5-2680 v4
AMD Athlon 300U
Athlon 300U

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.


4.5 3302 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2680 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.1 452 votes

Rate Athlon 300U on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2680 v4 or Athlon 300U, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.