E2-9000 vs Xeon E5-2680 v4
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by a whopping 1697% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and E2-9000 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 633 | 2669 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 18.42 | no data |
| Market segment | Workstation | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Xeon (Desktop) | Bristol Ridge |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell-EP (2016) | Stoney Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 10 March 2016 (8 years ago) | 1 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,745 | no data |
| Current price | $196 (0.1x MSRP) | $78 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and E2-9000 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 28 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 2.2 GHz |
| Bus support | 9.6 GT/s / QPI | no data |
| L1 cache | 448 KB | no data |
| L2 cache | 3.5 MB | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 35 MB | no data |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 306 mm2 | 124.5 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 86 °C | 90 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4700 Million | 1200 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and E2-9000 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 | 2 | no data |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | BGA |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 10 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and E2-9000. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX2 | Single-Channel DDR4-1866, Virtualization, |
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no 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 |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| Status | Launched | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and E2-9000 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 E2-9000 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no 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 E2-9000. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 1.5 TB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon R2 (Stoney Ridge) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and E2-9000.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| 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.
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 1697% 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 1710% 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 107% 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 967% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 432% in 3DMark06 CPU.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 1648% in Cinebench 11.5 64-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 outperforms E2-9000 by 1873% 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 113% in Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark 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 loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
Benchmark coverage: 14%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 92% in Cinebench 11.5 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 1224% 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 750% 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 1156% 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 outperforms E2-9000 by 283% in x264 encoding pass 1.
Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 1061% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.
Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 5%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 59% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 794% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.
Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core
Benchmark coverage: 2%
Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms E2-9000 by 92% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.50 | 0.64 |
| Recency | 10 March 2016 | 1 June 2016 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 2 |
| Threads | 28 | 2 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 10 Watt |
The Xeon E5-2680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the E2-9000 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while E2-9000 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and E2-9000, 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.
