Xeon E-2468 vs E5-2699 v4

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2699 v4
2016
22 cores / 44 threads, 145 Watt
15.72
Xeon E-2468
2023
8 cores / 16 threads, 65 Watt
16.51
+5%

Xeon E-2468 outperforms Xeon E5-2699 v4 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking434401
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.5493.14
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon E5no data
Power efficiency10.2624.04
Architecture codenameBroadwell (2015−2019)Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024)
Release date20 June 2016 (8 years ago)14 December 2023 (1 year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$4,115$426

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E-2468 has 3567% better value for money than Xeon E5-2699 v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468 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 GHz2.6 GHz
Boost clock speed3.6 GHz5.2 GHz
Bus typeQPIno data
Bus rate2 × 9.6 GT/s16 GT/s
Multiplier22no data
L1 cacheno data80 KB (per core)
L2 cache5.5 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache55 MB24 MB (shared)
Chip lithography14 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size456.12 mm2257 mm2
Maximum core temperature79 °C100 °C
Number of transistors7200 Millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468 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)1
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA1700
Power consumption (TDP)145 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVX2Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology2.02
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring++
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
PAE46 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468 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 E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133, DDR4-2400DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size1.5 TB128 GB
Max memory channels42
Maximum memory bandwidth76.8 GB/sno data
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 Xeon E-2468.

PCIe version3.05
PCI Express lanes4016

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
Xeon E-2468 16.51
+5%

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
Xeon E-2468 26221
+5%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 15.72 16.51
Recency 20 June 2016 14 December 2023
Physical cores 22 8
Threads 44 16
Power consumption (TDP) 145 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon E5-2699 v4 has 175% more physical cores and 175% more threads.

Xeon E-2468, on the other hand, has a 5% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 7 years, and 123.1% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2699 v4 and Xeon E-2468, 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
Intel Xeon E-2468
Xeon E-2468

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

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon E-2468 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 Xeon E-2468, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.