Ultra 9 285T vs Xeon E5-2682 v4
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 648 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 9.46 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Arrow Lake-S (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | January 2025 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 24 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 1.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 5.4 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | no data |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 21 | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 112 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 3 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 40 MB | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Die size | 456.12 mm2 | 243 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 7200 Million | 17,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T 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 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | no data | 1851 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | + | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5 Depends on motherboard |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Arc Xe2 Graphics 64EU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 20 |
Pros & cons summary
| Physical cores | 16 | 24 |
| Threads | 32 | 24 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 3 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 35 Watt |
Xeon E5-2682 v4 has 33.3% more threads.
Ultra 9 285T, on the other hand, has 50% more physical cores, a 366.7% more advanced lithography process, and 242.9% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T. We've got no test results to judge.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2682 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Core Ultra 9 285T is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2682 v4 and Core Ultra 9 285T, 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.
