EPYC 72F3 vs Xeon E5-2699 v4

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2699 v4
2016
22 cores / 44 threads, 145 Watt
15.72
EPYC 72F3
2021
8 cores / 16 threads, 180 Watt
17.16
+9.2%

EPYC 72F3 outperforms Xeon E5-2699 v4 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking434374
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.544.59
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5AMD EPYC
Power efficiency10.269.02
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Milan (2021−2023)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)12 January 2021 (3 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,115$2,468

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

EPYC 72F3 has 81% better value for money than Xeon E5-2699 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3 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 cores22 (Docosa-Core)8 (Octa-Core)
Threads4416
Base clock speed2.2 GHz3.7 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz4.1 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/sno data
Multiplier2237
L1 cacheno data512 KB
L2 cache5.5 MB4 MB
L3 cache55 MB256 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nm7 nm+
Die size456.12 mm28x 81 mm2
Maximum core temperature79 °Cno data
Number of transistors7200 Million33,200 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketFCLGA2011SP3
Power consumption (TDP)145 Watt180 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2no data
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0no data
Hyper-Threading Technology+no data
TSX+-
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3 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 E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3 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 E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR4-3200
Maximum memory size1.5 TB4 TiB
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/s204.795 GB/s
ECC memory support+-

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3.

PCIe version3.04.0
PCI Express lanes40128

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 E5-2699 v4 15.72
EPYC 72F3 17.16
+9.2%

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 E5-2699 v4 24976
EPYC 72F3 27252
+9.1%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.72 17.16
Recency 20 June 2016 12 January 2021
Physical cores 22 8
Threads 44 16
Chip lithography 14 nm 7 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 145 Watt 180 Watt

Xeon E5-2699 v4 has 175% more physical cores and 175% more threads, and 24.1% lower power consumption.

EPYC 72F3, on the other hand, has a 9.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 4 years, and a 100% more advanced lithography process.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2699 v4 and EPYC 72F3, 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 E5-2699 v4
Xeon E5-2699 v4
AMD EPYC 72F3
EPYC 72F3

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.


4.3 546 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2699 v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 6 votes

Rate EPYC 72F3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2699 v4 or EPYC 72F3, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.