EPYC 4124P vs Xeon E5-2680 v2

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2680 v2
2013
10 cores / 20 threads, 115 Watt
7.97
EPYC 4124P
2024
4 cores / 8 threads, 65 Watt
11.73
+47.2%

EPYC 4124P outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v2 by a considerable 47% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking933659
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.0449.74
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency6.5617.08
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge-EP (2013)Raphael (2023−2024)
Release date1 September 2013 (11 years ago)21 May 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,260$149

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 4124P has 2338% better value for money than Xeon E5-2680 v2.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads208
Base clock speed2.8 GHz3.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz5.1 GHz
Bus rate8 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)1 MB (per core)
L3 cache25 MB (shared)32 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nm5 nm
Die size160 mm271 mm2
Maximum core temperature82 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data61 °C
Number of transistors1,400 million6,570 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA2011AM5
Power consumption (TDP)115 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

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

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+no data
EDB+no data
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P 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 E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5
Maximum memory size768 GBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth59.7 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataAMD Radeon Graphics

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4028

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 E5-2680 v2 7.97
EPYC 4124P 11.73
+47.2%

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 E5-2680 v2 12665
EPYC 4124P 18637
+47.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.97 11.73
Recency 1 September 2013 21 May 2024
Physical cores 10 4
Threads 20 8
Chip lithography 22 nm 5 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 115 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon E5-2680 v2 has 150% more physical cores and 150% more threads.

EPYC 4124P, on the other hand, has a 47.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, a 340% more advanced lithography process, and 76.9% lower power consumption.

The EPYC 4124P is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2680 v2 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v2 and EPYC 4124P, 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 E5-2680 v2
Xeon E5-2680 v2
AMD EPYC 4124P
EPYC 4124P

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.


4.2 525 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2680 v2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate EPYC 4124P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2680 v2 or EPYC 4124P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.