EPYC 7402 vs Xeon E5-2690
Aggregate performance score
EPYC 7402 outperforms Xeon E5-2690 by a whopping 373% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1092 | 156 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.92 | 10.51 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | AMD EPYC |
| Power efficiency | 4.30 | 15.23 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Zen 2 (2017−2020) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 7 August 2019 (5 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $397 | $1,783 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
EPYC 7402 has 168% better value for money than Xeon E5-2690.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402 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) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 2.8 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 3.35 GHz |
| Bus rate | 8 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 28 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 1.5 MB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 12 MB |
| L3 cache | 20480 KB (shared) | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm, 14 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | 192 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | 4,800 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402 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 | 2 (Multiprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | TR4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 180 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402 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 and EPYC 7402. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Eight-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 384 GB | 4 TiB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 8 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 204.763 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | no 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.
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 | 6.13 | 28.97 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 7 August 2019 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 24 |
| Threads | 16 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 7 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 180 Watt |
Xeon E5-2690 has 33.3% lower power consumption.
EPYC 7402, on the other hand, has a 372.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads, and a 357.1% more advanced lithography process.
The EPYC 7402 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2690 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2690 and EPYC 7402, 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.
