Ryzen 5 2600 vs Xeon E5-2658 v4
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2658 v4 outperforms Ryzen 5 2600 by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 839 | 903 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 22 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.84 | 9.80 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | AMD Ryzen 5 |
| Power efficiency | 8.19 | 12.08 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Pinnacle Riege (Zen+) (2018) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 19 April 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,832 | $199 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen 5 2600 has 433% better value for money than Xeon E5-2658 v4.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600 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 | 14 (Tetradeca-Core) | 6 (Hexa-Core) |
| Threads | 28 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | no data | 3.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 3.9 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | no data |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 23 | 34 |
| L1 cache | no data | 96K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3.5 MB | 3 MB |
| L3 cache | 35 MB | 16 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Die size | 306.18 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 95 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4700 Million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600 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 (Multiprocessor) | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | no data | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSSE3, SSE4A, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX, AVX2, BMI2, ABM, FMA, ADX, SMEP, SMAP, SMT, CPB, AES-NI, RDRAND, RDSEED, SHA, SME |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | - | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory size | 1,536 GB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 46.933 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 20 |
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.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 9.09 | 8.30 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 19 April 2018 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 6 |
| Threads | 28 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 12 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 105 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon E5-2658 v4 has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 133.3% more physical cores and 133.3% more threads.
Ryzen 5 2600, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 16.7% more advanced lithography process, and 61.5% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2658 v4 is a mobile workstation processor while Ryzen 5 2600 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2658 v4 and Ryzen 5 2600, 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.
