Xeon Gold 6258R vs E5-2690 v4

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2690 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 135 Watt
12.26
Xeon Gold 6258R
2020
28 cores / 56 threads, 205 Watt
25.34
+107%

Xeon Gold 6258R outperforms Xeon E5-2690 v4 by a whopping 107% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking622194
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.9814.04
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5Intel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency8.5911.70
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Cascade Lake (2019−2020)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)24 February 2020 (4 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,090$3,950

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6258R has 371% better value for money than Xeon E5-2690 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R 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)28 (Octacosa-Core)
Threads2856
Base clock speed2.6 GHz2.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz4 GHz
Bus typeQPIDMI 3.0
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/s4 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2627
L1 cacheno data1.75 MB
L2 cache3.5 MB28 MB
L3 cache35 MB38.5 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die size306.18 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature89 °C74 °C
Number of transistors4700 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)no data
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)135 Watt205 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4-2933
Maximum memory size1.5 TB1 TB
Max memory channels46
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s140.8 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4048

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 v4 12.26
Xeon Gold 6258R 25.34
+107%

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.

Xeon E5-2690 v4 19468
Xeon Gold 6258R 40252
+107%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.26 25.34
Recency 20 June 2016 24 February 2020
Physical cores 14 28
Threads 28 56
Power consumption (TDP) 135 Watt 205 Watt

Xeon E5-2690 v4 has 51.9% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6258R, on the other hand, has a 106.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, and 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6258R is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2690 v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2690 v4 and Xeon Gold 6258R, 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 v4
Xeon E5-2690 v4
Intel Xeon Gold 6258R
Xeon Gold 6258R

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.


4.4 1654 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2690 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 20 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6258R on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2690 v4 or Xeon Gold 6258R, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.