Ryzen Threadripper 7960X vs Xeon E5-2697 v4
Aggregate performance score
Ryzen Threadripper 7960X outperforms Xeon E5-2697 v4 by a whopping 300% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 575 | 28 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.70 | 33.44 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Intel Xeon E5 | no data |
| Power efficiency | 8.59 | 14.24 |
| Architecture codename | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Storm Peak (2023) |
| Release date | 20 June 2016 (8 years ago) | 19 October 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $2,702 | $1,499 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Ryzen Threadripper 7960X has 1139% better value for money than Xeon E5-2697 v4.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X 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 | 18 (Octadeca-Core) | 24 (Tetracosa-Core) |
| Threads | 36 | 48 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 4.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| Bus type | QPI | no data |
| Bus rate | 2 × 9.6 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | 23 | no data |
| L1 cache | no data | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 4.5 MB | 1 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 45 MB | 128 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Die size | 456.12 mm2 | 4x 71 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 79 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 7200 Million | 26,280 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X 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 (Multiprocessor) | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | sTR5 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 350 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| TSX | + | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| Precision Boost 2 | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X 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 E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X 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 E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400 | DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 1.5 TB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 5.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 48 |
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 13.16 | 52.65 |
| Recency | 20 June 2016 | 19 October 2023 |
| Physical cores | 18 | 24 |
| Threads | 36 | 48 |
| Chip lithography | 14 nm | 5 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 145 Watt | 350 Watt |
Xeon E5-2697 v4 has 141.4% lower power consumption.
Ryzen Threadripper 7960X, on the other hand, has a 300.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, 33.3% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, and a 180% more advanced lithography process.
The Ryzen Threadripper 7960X is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2697 v4 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2697 v4 is a server/workstation processor while Ryzen Threadripper 7960X is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2697 v4 and Ryzen Threadripper 7960X, 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.
