i7-13700F vs Xeon E5-2695 v3

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2695 v3
2014
14 cores / 28 threads, 120 Watt
10.61
Core i7-13700F
2023
16 cores / 24 threads, 65 Watt
24.61
+132%

Core i7-13700F outperforms Xeon E5-2695 v3 by a whopping 132% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking731204
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data54.02
Market segmentServerDesktop processor
Power efficiency8.3335.68
Architecture codenameHaswell-EP (2014−2015)Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
Release date8 September 2014 (10 years ago)4 January 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$359

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F 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)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads2824
Base clock speed2.3 GHz2.1 GHz
Boost clock speed3.3 GHz5.2 GHz
Bus rate9.6 GT/sno data
L1 cache64K (per core)80K (per core)
L2 cache256K (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache35 MB (shared)30 MB (shared)
Chip lithography22 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size356 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperature83 °C100 °C
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data72 °C
Number of transistors2,600 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F 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
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F 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 E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133DDR5-5600, DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size768 GB192 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth68 GB/s89.6 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F.

PCIe version3.05.0 and 4.0
PCI Express lanes4016

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 E5-2695 v3 10.61
i7-13700F 24.61
+132%

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 E5-2695 v3 16790
i7-13700F 38953
+132%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 10.61 24.61
Recency 8 September 2014 4 January 2023
Physical cores 14 16
Threads 28 24
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon E5-2695 v3 has 16.7% more threads.

i7-13700F, on the other hand, has a 132% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, 14.3% more physical cores, and 84.6% lower power consumption.

The Core i7-13700F is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2695 v3 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2695 v3 is a server/workstation processor while Core i7-13700F is a desktop one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2695 v3 and Core i7-13700F, 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 E5-2695 v3
Xeon E5-2695 v3
Intel Core i7-13700F
Core i7-13700F

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.


4.2 106 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2695 v3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.2 490 votes

Rate Core i7-13700F on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2695 v3 or Core i7-13700F, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.