Xeon Gold 5115 vs E5-2697 v2

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2697 v2
2013
12 cores / 24 threads, 130 Watt
8.99
Xeon Gold 5115
2017
10 cores / 20 threads, 85 Watt
9.24
+2.8%

Xeon Gold 5115 outperforms Xeon E5-2697 v2 by a minimal 3% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking857830
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.964.30
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon (Desktop)Intel Xeon Gold
Power efficiency6.5410.29
Architecture codenameIvy Bridge-EP (2013)Skylake (server) (2017−2018)
Release date1 September 2013 (11 years ago)11 July 2017 (7 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,723$1,221

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 5115 has 119% better value for money than Xeon E5-2697 v2.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115 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)10 (Deca-Core)
Threads2420
Base clock speed2.7 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.5 GHz3.2 GHz
Bus rate8GT/sno data
Multiplierno data24
L1 cache64K (per core)640 KB
L2 cache256K (per core)10 MB
L3 cache30 MB (shared)13.75 MB
Chip lithography22 nm14 nm
Die size160 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature86 °C76 °C
Number of transistors1,400 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115 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 configuration24 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA3647
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt85 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data-

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Key+no data
OS Guard+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115 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 Gold 5115. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR4-2400
Maximum memory size768 GB768 GB
Max memory channels46
Maximum memory bandwidth59.7 GB/s115.212 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4048

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 8.99
Xeon Gold 5115 9.24
+2.8%

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 14280
Xeon Gold 5115 14677
+2.8%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.99 9.24
Recency 1 September 2013 11 July 2017
Physical cores 12 10
Threads 24 20
Chip lithography 22 nm 14 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 85 Watt

Xeon E5-2697 v2 has 20% more physical cores and 20% more threads.

Xeon Gold 5115, on the other hand, has a 2.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 52.9% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2697 v2 and Xeon Gold 5115, 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 Gold 5115
Xeon Gold 5115

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.


4.5 776 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 4 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 5115 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 Gold 5115, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.