Xeon E-2276G vs E5 1680 v4
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5 1680 v4 outperforms Xeon E-2276G by a minimal 2% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 856 | 864 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.95 | 29.58 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | Intel Xeon E |
| Power efficiency | 6.05 | 10.39 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell-EP (2016) | Coffee Lake-S WS (2018−2019) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 29 May 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,723 | $362 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E-2276G has 1417% better value for money than Xeon E5 1680 v4.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 3.4 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4 GHz | 4.9 GHz |
| Bus type | DMI 2.0 | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 34 | 38 |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 246.24 mm2 | 154 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 70 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 3,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G 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 (Uniprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | + | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | no data | Yes with both Intel® SPS and Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | 1.5 TB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |
| Max video memory | no data | 128 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video | no data | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.2 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| 4K resolution support | no data | + |
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096x2160@24Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 4096x2304@60Hz |
| Max resolution over VGA | no data | N/A |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.5 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 8.95 | 8.78 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 29 May 2019 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 6 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 80 Watt |
Xeon E5 1680 v4 has a 1.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads.
Xeon E-2276G, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 2 years, and 75% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5 1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5 1680 v4 and Xeon E-2276G, 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.
