i9-13900K vs Xeon E5-2680 v4
Aggregate performance score
Core i9-13900K outperforms Xeon E5-2680 v4 by a whopping 234% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 704 | 88 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.98 | 62.93 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon (Desktop) | Intel Core i9 |
| Power efficiency | 8.76 | 28.06 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell-EP (2016) | Raptor Lake, Raptor Cove, Gracemont (2022) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 27 September 2022 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $1,745 | $589 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i9-13900K has 2012% better value for money than Xeon E5-2680 v4.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 28 | 32 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 5.7 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | no data |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | 4 × 16 GT/s |
| Multiplier | 24 | 30 |
| L1 cache | 448 KB | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 3.5 MB | 2 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 35 MB | 36 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 306.18 mm2 | 257 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 86 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 4700 Million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K 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 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K. 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) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| SIPP | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| OS Guard | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 1.5 TB | 192 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 89.604 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 770 |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.65 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 32 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2160 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 5120 x 3200 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K 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 E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 and 4.0 |
| 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.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Cinebench 15 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 15 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R15 which uses all the processor threads.
Cinebench 15 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R15 (standing for Release 15) is a benchmark made by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version (sometimes called Single-Thread) only uses a single processor thread to render a room full of reflective spheres and light sources.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit single-core
Cinebench R11.5 is an old benchmark by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. It was superseded by later versions of Cinebench, which use more modern variants of Cinema 4D engine. The Single Core version loads a single thread with ray tracing to render a glossy room full of crystal spheres and light sources.
TrueCrypt AES
TrueCrypt is a discontinued piece of software that was widely used for on-the-fly-encryption of disk partitions, now superseded by VeraCrypt. It contains several embedded performance tests, one of them being TrueCrypt AES, which measures data encryption speed using AES algorithm. Result is encryption speed in gigabytes per second.
WinRAR 4.0
WinRAR 4.0 is an outdated version of a popular file archiver. It contains an internal speed test, using 'Best' setting of RAR compression on large chunks of randomly generated data. Its results are measured in kilobytes per second.
x264 encoding pass 2
x264 Pass 2 is a slower variant of x264 video compression that produces a variable bit rate output file, which results in better quality since the higher bit rate is used when it is needed more. Benchmark result is still measured in frames per second.
x264 encoding pass 1
x264 version 4.0 is a video encoding benchmark uses MPEG 4 x264 compression method to compress a sample HD (720p) video. Pass 1 is a faster variant that produces a constant bit rate output file. Its result is measured in frames per second, which means how many frames of the source video file were encoded per second.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 11.12 | 37.09 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 27 September 2022 |
| Physical cores | 14 | 24 |
| Threads | 28 | 32 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 120 Watt | 125 Watt |
Xeon E5-2680 v4 has 4.2% lower power consumption.
i9-13900K, on the other hand, has a 233.5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, and 71.4% more physical cores and 14.3% more threads.
The Core i9-13900K is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2680 v4 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2680 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Core i9-13900K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2680 v4 and Core i9-13900K, 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.
