EPYC 7513 vs Xeon E5-2690 v3

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2690 v3
2014
12 cores / 24 threads, 135 Watt
10.70
EPYC 7513
2021
32 cores / 64 threads, 200 Watt
38.33
+258%

EPYC 7513 outperforms Xeon E5-2690 v3 by a whopping 258% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking67172
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation17.487.85
Market segmentServerServer
Seriesno dataAMD EPYC
Architecture codenameHaswell-EP (2014)Milan (2021)
Release date8 September 2014 (9 years ago)15 March 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$2,840
Current price$29 $4189 (1.5x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2690 v3 has 123% better value for money than EPYC 7513.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)32 (Dotriaconta-Core)
Threads2464
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.65 GHz
L1 cache64K (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)512 KB (per core)
L3 cache30 MB (shared)128 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm7 nm+
Die size356 mm28x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature90 °Cno data
Number of transistors2,600 million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplierNoYes

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513 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 configuration22
SocketFCLGA2011SP3
Power consumption (TDP)135 Watt200 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513. 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
StatusDiscontinuedno data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513 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 E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513 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 E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size768 GB4 TiB
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth68 GB/s204.795 GB/s
ECC memory support+no data

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes40128

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 E5-2690 v3 10.70
EPYC 7513 38.33
+258%

EPYC 7513 outperforms Xeon E5-2690 v3 by 258% 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 E5-2690 v3 16545
EPYC 7513 59285
+258%

EPYC 7513 outperforms Xeon E5-2690 v3 by 258% in Passmark.

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.70 38.33
Recency 8 September 2014 15 March 2021
Physical cores 12 32
Threads 24 64
Chip lithography 22 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 135 Watt 200 Watt

The EPYC 7513 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2690 v3 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2690 v3 and EPYC 7513, 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 E5-2690 v3
Xeon E5-2690 v3
AMD EPYC 7513
EPYC 7513

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.


4.5 862 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2690 v3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.8 4 votes

Rate EPYC 7513 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2690 v3 or EPYC 7513, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.