EPYC 9654P vs Xeon E5-1650 v4

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-1650 v4
2016
6 cores / 12 threads, 140 Watt
7.21
EPYC 9654P
2022
96 cores / 192 threads, 360 Watt
71.74
+895%

EPYC 9654P outperforms Xeon E5-1650 v4 by a whopping 895% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9867
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation3.391.90
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency4.8718.86
Architecture codenameBroadwell-EP (2016)Genoa (2022−2023)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)10 November 2022 (2 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$617$10,625

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-1650 v4 has 78% better value for money than EPYC 9654P.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)96
Threads12192
Base clock speed3.6 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed4 GHz3.7 GHz
Bus typeDMI 2.0no data
Bus rate5 GT/sno data
Multiplier3624
L1 cache64K (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache15 MB (shared)384 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm5 nm, 6 nm
Die size246.24 mm212x 72 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)69 °Cno data
Number of transistors3,400 million78,840 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P 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)2
SocketFCLGA2011SP5
Power consumption (TDP)140 Watt360 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0+no data
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
Identity Protection+-
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P are enumerated here.

AMD-V-+
VT-d+no data
VT-x+no data
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P. 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 TB6 TiB
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s460.8 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes40128

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 E5-1650 v4 7.21
EPYC 9654P 71.74
+895%

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 E5-1650 v4 11451
EPYC 9654P 113949
+895%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.21 71.74
Recency 20 June 2016 10 November 2022
Physical cores 6 96
Threads 12 192
Chip lithography 14 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 140 Watt 360 Watt

Xeon E5-1650 v4 has 157.1% lower power consumption.

EPYC 9654P, on the other hand, has a 895% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, 1500% more physical cores and 1500% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.

The EPYC 9654P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-1650 v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1650 v4 and EPYC 9654P, 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 E5-1650 v4
Xeon E5-1650 v4
AMD EPYC 9654P
EPYC 9654P

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.


4 455 votes

Rate Xeon E5-1650 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 9 votes

Rate EPYC 9654P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-1650 v4 or EPYC 9654P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.