Xeon E5-2670 v4 vs Athlon X4 860K
Primary details
Comparing Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1844 | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon E5 |
| Power efficiency | 2.15 | no data |
| Architecture codename | Kaveri (2014−2015) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
| Release date | 12 August 2014 (10 years ago) | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 28 |
| Base clock speed | 3.7 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 3.1 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | QPI |
| Bus rate | no data | 2 × 9.6 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 31 |
| L1 cache | 256K | no data |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 3.5 MB |
| L3 cache | no data | 35 MB |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 245 mm2 | 306.18 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,411 million | 4700 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | + | - |
Compatibility
Information on Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4 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 | 1 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | FM2+ | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | + | - |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| TSX | - | + |
Security technologies
Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3-2133 | no data |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 1,536 GB |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 16 | 40 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 12 August 2014 | 20 June 2016 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 14 |
| Threads | 4 | 28 |
| Chip lithography | 28 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 120 Watt |
Athlon X4 860K has 26.3% lower power consumption.
Xeon E5-2670 v4, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, 250% more physical cores and 600% more threads, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.
We couldn't decide between Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4. We've got no test results to judge.
Note that Athlon X4 860K is a desktop processor while Xeon E5-2670 v4 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Athlon X4 860K and Xeon E5-2670 v4, 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.
