Ryzen 9 7900 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
Ryzen 9 7900
2023
12 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
31.58
+174%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by a whopping 174% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 9 7900 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking624116
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation28.3262.98
Market segmentWorkstationDesktop processor
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)no data
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Raphael (Zen4)
Release date10 March 2016 (8 years ago)14 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,745no data
Current price$126 (0.1x MSRP)$528

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Ryzen 9 7900 has 122% better value for money than Xeon E5-2680 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 9 7900 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)12 (Dodeca-Core)
Threads2824
Base clock speed2.4 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz5.4 GHz
Bus support9.6 GT/s / QPIno data
L1 cache448 KB64K (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB1 MB (per core)
L3 cache35 MB64 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm
Die size306 mm22x 71 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °C95 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data47 °C
Number of transistors4700 Million13,140 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 9 7900 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
SocketFCLGA2011AM5
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 9 7900. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX25 nm, 0.650 - 1.475V
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 9 7900 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 9 7900 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 9 7900. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR5-5200
Maximum memory size1.5 TBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics (Ryzen 7000)

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 9 7900.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4024

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
Ryzen 9 7900 31.58
+174%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 174% 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 17802
Ryzen 9 7900 48848
+174%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 174% 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 1010
Ryzen 9 7900 2836
+181%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 181% 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 6971
Ryzen 9 7900 16846
+142%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 142% 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 9 7900 8339
+125%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 125% 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 9 7900 60934
+97.1%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 97% 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 9 7900 19451
+135%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 135% 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 9 7900 45
+157%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 157% 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 9 7900 4020
+143%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 143% 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 9 7900 315
+215%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 215% 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 9 7900 3.68
+226%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 226% 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 9 7900 21.5
+129%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 129% 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 9 7900 10154
+60.6%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 61% 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 9 7900 207
+162%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 162% 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 9 7900 356
+160%

Ryzen 9 7900 outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by 160% in x264 encoding pass 1.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 11.51 31.58
Recency 10 March 2016 14 January 2023
Physical cores 14 12
Threads 28 24
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

The Ryzen 9 7900 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 9 7900 is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Ryzen 9 7900, 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 9 7900
Ryzen 9 7900

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 3102 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.7 216 votes

Rate Ryzen 9 7900 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 9 7900, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.