Xeon E-2468 vs E5-1630 v4

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-1630 v4
2016
4 cores / 8 threads, 140 Watt
4.88
Xeon E-2468
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
16.82
+245%

Xeon E-2468 outperforms Xeon E5-1630 v4 by a whopping 245% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking1246393
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.2292.92
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5no data
Power efficiency3.2424.03
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$406$426

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E-2468 has 4086% better value for money than Xeon E5-1630 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads816
Base clock speed3.7 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz5.2 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate5 GT/s16 GT/s
Multiplier37no data
L1 cache64K (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache1 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache10 MB (shared)24 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size246.24 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperatureno data100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)69 °Cno data
Number of transistors3200 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468 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 configuration1 (Uniprocessor)1
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.02
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0++

Security technologies

Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key++
Identity Protection+-
OS Guard++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size1.5 TB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468.

PCIe version3.05
PCI Express lanes4016

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 E5-1630 v4 4.88
Xeon E-2468 16.82
+245%

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 E5-1630 v4 7601
Xeon E-2468 26221
+245%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.88 16.82
Recency 20 June 2016 14 December 2023
Physical cores 4 8
Threads 8 16
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon E-2468 has a 244.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and 115.4% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E-2468 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-1630 v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1630 v4 and Xeon E-2468, 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 E5-1630 v4
Xeon E5-1630 v4
Intel Xeon E-2468
Xeon E-2468

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.


4.3 20 votes

Rate Xeon E5-1630 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon E-2468 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-1630 v4 or Xeon E-2468, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.