Apple M2 Max vs Xeon E5-2697 v2
Aggregate performance score
Apple M2 Max outperforms Xeon E5-2697 v2 by an impressive 87% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 856 | 393 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.96 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | Intel Xeon (Desktop) | Apple M-Series |
| Power efficiency | 6.54 | 20.14 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) | no data |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 17 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,723 | no data |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max 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 | 12 (Dodeca-Core) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 24 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 2.424 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8GT/s | no data |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 3.3 MB |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 36 MB |
| L3 cache | 30 MB (shared) | 48 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 86 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 67000 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max 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 | no data |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 79 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | - |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | 768 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Apple M2 Max 38-Core GPU |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
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.
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.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.99 | 16.81 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 17 January 2023 |
| Threads | 24 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 79 Watt |
Xeon E5-2697 v2 has 100% more threads.
Apple M2 Max, on the other hand, has a 87% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 9 years, a 340% more advanced lithography process, and 64.6% lower power consumption.
The Apple M2 Max is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2697 v2 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2697 v2 is a server/workstation processor while Apple M2 Max is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Apple M2 Max, 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.
