Core i9-10900K vs Xeon E5-2698 v3
Aggregate performance score
i9-10900K outperforms Xeon E5-2698 v3 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 599 | 460 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.32 | 23.61 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Haswell-EP (2014) | Comet Lake (2020) |
| Release date | 8 September 2014 (9 years ago) | 20 May 2020 (4 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $488 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
i9-10900K has 54% better value for money than Xeon E5-2698 v3.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 20 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 5.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 640 KB |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 2.5 MB |
| L3 cache | 40 MB (shared) | 20 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 356 mm2 | 206 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 88 °C | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,600 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K 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 | 1 |
| Socket | 2011-3 | LGA1200 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 125 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| TSX | + | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2133 | DDR4 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 68 GB/s | 45.8 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel UHD Graphics 630 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 16 |
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.
Core i9-10900K outperforms Xeon E5-2698 v3 by 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i9-10900K outperforms Xeon E5-2698 v3 by 21% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core i9-10900K outperforms Xeon E5-2698 v3 by 69% in GeekBench 5 Single-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.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Core i9-10900K outperforms Xeon E5-2698 v3 by 25% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.24 | 14.78 |
| Recency | 8 September 2014 | 20 May 2020 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 10 |
| Threads | 32 | 20 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 125 Watt |
Xeon E5-2698 v3 has 60% more physical cores and 60% more threads.
i9-10900K, on the other hand, has a 20.8% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 5 years, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 8% lower power consumption.
The Core i9-10900K is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2698 v3 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2698 v3 is a server/workstation processor while Core i9-10900K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i9-10900K, 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.
