Ryzen 7 1700 vs Xeon E5-2680 v4

#ad
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregated performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads
11.41
+20.1%
Ryzen 7 1700
2017
8 cores / 16 threads
9.50

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 20% based on our aggregated benchmark results.

General info

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 1700 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking610727
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Value for money27.7413.84
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)AMD Ryzen 7
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Zen (2017−2020)
Release date10 March 2016 (8 years ago)2 March 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,745$329
Current price$126 (0.1x MSRP)$160 (0.5x MSRP)

Value for money

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2680 v4 has 100% better value for money than Ryzen 7 1700.

Technical specs

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 1700 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 speed2.4 GHz3 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus support9.6 GT/s / QPIno data
L1 cache448 KB768 KB
L2 cache3.5 MB4096 KB
L3 cache35 MB16384 KB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size306 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Number of transistors4700 Million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 1700 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)
SocketFCLGA2011AM4
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 1700. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2XFR, FMA3, SSE 4.2, AVX2, SMT
AES-NI++
FMAno dataFMA3
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
XFRno data-
SenseMIno data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 1700 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 Ryzen 7 1700 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 Ryzen 7 1700. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4
Maximum memory size1.5 TB64 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s42.671 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 1700.

PCIe version3.0n/a
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 E5-2680 v4 11.41
+20.1%
Ryzen 7 1700 9.50

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 20% based on our aggregated 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 17789
+20%
Ryzen 7 1700 14818

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 20% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 1009
+0.2%
Ryzen 7 1700 1007

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 6975
+36.6%
Ryzen 7 1700 5105

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 37% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

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
Ryzen 7 1700 4419
+19.2%

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 19% 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
+5.4%
Ryzen 7 1700 29330

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 5% 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 8286
Ryzen 7 1700 8335
+0.6%

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 1% 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 18
+12.4%
Ryzen 7 1700 16

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 12% 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 1657
+17.2%
Ryzen 7 1700 1414

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 17% 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
Ryzen 7 1700 147
+47%

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 47% 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 1.13
Ryzen 7 1700 1.66
+46.9%

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 47% 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 9.4
+30.6%
Ryzen 7 1700 7.2

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 31% 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
+83.4%
Ryzen 7 1700 3447

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 83% in WinRAR 4.0.

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
Ryzen 7 1700 154
+12.6%

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 13% in x264 encoding pass 1.

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
+6.3%
Ryzen 7 1700 74

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 6% in x264 encoding pass 2.

Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 2275
Ryzen 7 1700 3343
+46.9%

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 47% in Geekbench 3 32-bit single-core.

Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 5%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 26961
+12.7%
Ryzen 7 1700 23920

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 13% in Geekbench 3 32-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 21194
+9.9%
Ryzen 7 1700 19292

Xeon E5-2680 v4 outperforms Ryzen 7 1700 by 10% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit multi-core.

Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core

Benchmark coverage: 2%

Xeon E5-2680 v4 2961
Ryzen 7 1700 4145
+40%

Ryzen 7 1700 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 40% in Geekbench 4.0 64-bit single-core.

Gaming performance

Advantages and disadvantages


Performance score 11.41 9.50
Recency 10 March 2016 2 March 2017
Physical cores 14 8
Threads 28 16
Cost $1745 $329
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

The Xeon E5-2680 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen 7 1700 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 7 1700 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 1700, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote

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 Ryzen 7 1700
Ryzen 7 1700

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.

User Ratings

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


4.5 2839 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 1422 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 1700 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions and comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2680 v4 or Ryzen 7 1700, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.