Xeon D-1520 vs E5-2697 v2

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2697 v2
2013
12 cores / 24 threads, 130 Watt
9.16
+191%
Xeon D-1520
2015
4 cores / 8 threads, 45 Watt
3.15

Xeon E5-2697 v2 outperforms Xeon D-1520 by a whopping 191% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking8471619
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.941.76
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)Intel Xeon D
Power efficiency6.546.50
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge-EP (2013)Broadwell (2015−2019)
Release date1 September 2013 (11 years ago)9 March 2015 (9 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,723$199

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2697 v2 has 10% better value for money than Xeon D-1520.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520 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 cores12 (Dodeca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads248
Base clock speed2.7 GHz2.2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz2.6 GHz
Bus typeno dataDMI 2.0
Bus rate8GT/sno data
Multiplierno data22
L1 cache64K (per core)256 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)1 MB
L3 cache30 MB (shared)6 MB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size160 mm2246.24 mm2
Maximum core temperature86 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data80 °C
Number of transistors1,400 million3200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520 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 (Uniprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011FCBGA1667
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt45 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
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
GPIOno data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520 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 E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4
Maximum memory size768 GB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth59.7 GB/s34.124 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520.

PCIe version3.02.0/3.0
PCI Express lanes4024
USB revisionno data2.0/3.0
Total number of SATA portsno data6
Number of USB portsno data8
Integrated LANno data+
UARTno 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 E5-2697 v2 9.16
+191%
Xeon D-1520 3.15

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 E5-2697 v2 14281
+190%
Xeon D-1520 4917

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 9.16 3.15
Recency 1 September 2013 9 March 2015
Physical cores 12 4
Threads 24 8
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 45 Watt

Xeon E5-2697 v2 has a 190.8% higher aggregate performance score, and 200% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

Xeon D-1520, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 188.9% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2697 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon D-1520 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon D-1520, 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 E5-2697 v2
Xeon E5-2697 v2
Intel Xeon D-1520
Xeon D-1520

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.


4.4 755 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2697 v2 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon D-1520 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2697 v2 or Xeon D-1520, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.