Ryzen 7 3700X vs Xeon E5-2680 v4

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 120 Watt
11.50
Ryzen 7 3700X
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
14.59
+26.9%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by a significant 27% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 3700X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking632465
Place by popularitynot in top-10097
Cost-effectiveness evaluation18.4539.57
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)AMD Ryzen 7
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Matisse (Zen 2) (2019−2020)
Release date10 March 2016 (8 years ago)7 July 2019 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,745$329
Current price$196 (0.1x MSRP)$203 (0.6x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 7 3700X has 114% better value for money than Xeon E5-2680 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 3700X 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 GHz3.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz4.4 GHz
Bus support9.6 GT/s / QPIno data
L1 cache448 KB96K (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache35 MB32 MB
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm
Die size306 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Number of transistors4700 Million19,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 3700X 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 3700X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
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 Ryzen 7 3700X 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 3700X 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 3700X. 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 TB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s51.196 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 3700X.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes40no 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 11.50
Ryzen 7 3700X 14.59
+26.9%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 27% 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 17789
Ryzen 7 3700X 22565
+26.8%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 27% 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 1012
Ryzen 7 3700X 1656
+63.6%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 64% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

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 6974
Ryzen 7 3700X 8100
+16.1%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 16% 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 3700X 5839
+57.5%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 58% 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
Ryzen 7 3700X 40439
+30.8%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 31% 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 3700X 13815
+66.7%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 67% 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
Ryzen 7 3700X 23
+31.4%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 31% 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
Ryzen 7 3700X 2092
+26.3%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 26% 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 3700X 204
+104%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 104% 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 3700X 2.3
+104%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 104% 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
Ryzen 7 3700X 11.4
+21.3%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 21% 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
Ryzen 7 3700X 7503
+18.7%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 19% 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
Ryzen 7 3700X 115
+45.4%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 45% 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
Ryzen 7 3700X 270
+97.3%

Ryzen 7 3700X outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 97% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.50 14.59
Recency 10 March 2016 7 July 2019
Physical cores 14 8
Threads 28 16
Cost $1745 $329
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

The Ryzen 7 3700X is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2680 v4 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen 7 3700X is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 7 3700X, 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 Ryzen 7 3700X
Ryzen 7 3700X

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 3269 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.4 4944 votes

Rate Ryzen 7 3700X 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 Ryzen 7 3700X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.