Ryzen Threadripper 1900X vs Xeon E5-2696 v4
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2696 v4 outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1900X by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 394 | 668 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.65 | 21.71 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | AMD Ryzen Threadripper |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Zen (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 31 August 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $549 |
| Current price | $1265 | $140 (0.3x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X has 284% better value for money than Xeon E5-2696 v4.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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 | 22 (Docosa-Core) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 44 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Bus support | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 5.5 MB | 512K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 55 MB | 32 MB |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 456.12 mm2 | 213 mm2 |
| Number of transistors | 7200 Million | 9,600 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X 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 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | SP3r2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 Quad-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | 2 TiB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 85.33 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 60 |
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 E5-2696 v4 outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1900X by 48% based on our aggregate 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 E5-2696 v4 outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1900X by 48% 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%
Ryzen Threadripper 1900X outperforms Xeon E5-2696 v4 by 10% 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 E5-2696 v4 outperforms Ryzen Threadripper 1900X by 40% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 16.04 | 10.86 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 31 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 22 | 8 |
| Threads | 44 | 16 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 150 Watt | 125 Watt |
The Xeon E5-2696 v4 is our recommended choice as it beats the Ryzen Threadripper 1900X in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2696 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 1900X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2696 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, 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.
