EPYC 7232P vs Xeon E5-2690 v4

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2690 v4
2016
14 cores / 28 threads, 135 Watt
12.26
+9.9%
EPYC 7232P
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 120 Watt
11.16

Xeon E5-2690 v4 outperforms EPYC 7232P by a moderate 10% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking621693
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.989.89
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency8.598.80
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Zen 2 (2017−2020)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)7 August 2019 (5 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$2,090$450

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 7232P has 232% better value for money than Xeon E5-2690 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P 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 cores14 (Tetradeca-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads2816
Base clock speed2.6 GHz3.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/sno data
Multiplier2631
L1 cacheno data96K (per core)
L2 cache3.5 MB512K (per core)
L3 cache35 MB32 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm, 14 nm
Die size306.18 mm2192 mm2
Maximum core temperature89 °Cno data
Number of transistors4700 Million4,800 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)1 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011TR4
Power consumption (TDP)135 Watt120 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P. 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
Precision Boost 2no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P 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 E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P 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 E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4 Eight-channel
Maximum memory size1.5 TB4 TiB
Max memory channels48
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s204.763 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes40no data

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 E5-2690 v4 12.26
+9.9%
EPYC 7232P 11.16

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 E5-2690 v4 19471
+9.8%
EPYC 7232P 17731

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 12.26 11.16
Recency 20 June 2016 7 August 2019
Physical cores 14 8
Threads 28 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 135 Watt 120 Watt

Xeon E5-2690 v4 has a 9.9% higher aggregate performance score, and 75% more physical cores and 75% more threads.

EPYC 7232P, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, a 100% more advanced lithography process, and 12.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2690 v4 and EPYC 7232P, 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 E5-2690 v4
Xeon E5-2690 v4
AMD EPYC 7232P
EPYC 7232P

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.


4.4 1658 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2690 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
1.3 125 votes

Rate EPYC 7232P on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2690 v4 or EPYC 7232P, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.