EPYC 7F32 vs Xeon E5-2689A v4
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | 491 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 3.69 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | no data | 7.62 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 14 April 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $2,100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | no data |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 34 | 37 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 246.24 mm2 | 74 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 3200 Million | 3,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32 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 | SP3 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4-3200 |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 14 April 2020 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 180 Watt |
Xeon E5-2689A v4 has 24.1% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7F32, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2689A v4 and EPYC 7F32, 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.
