Xeon E5-2630L v4 vs Silver 4208

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Silver 4208
2019
8 cores / 16 threads, 85 Watt
7.08
+12.4%
Xeon E5-2630L v4
2016
10 cores / 20 threads, 55 Watt
6.30

Xeon Silver 4208 outperforms Xeon E5-2630L v4 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking9931062
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation18.572.69
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon SilverIntel Xeon E5
Power efficiency7.8810.84
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Broadwell (2015−2019)
Release date2 April 2019 (5 years ago)20 June 2016 (8 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$417$612

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Silver 4208 has 590% better value for money than Xeon E5-2630L v4.

Detailed specifications

Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4 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 cores8 (Octa-Core)10 (Deca-Core)
Threads1620
Base clock speed2.1 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz2.9 GHz
Bus typeno dataQPI
Bus rateno data2 × 8 GT/s
Multiplier2118
L1 cache512 KBno data
L2 cache8 MB2.5 MB
L3 cache11 MB25 MB
Chip lithography14 nm14 nm
Die sizeno data246.24 mm2
Maximum core temperature78 °C62 °C
Number of transistorsno data3200 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+-

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4 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 (Multiprocessor)
SocketFCLGA3647FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt55 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512Intel® AVX2
AES-NI++
AVX++
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX++
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data-
Demand Based Switchingno data+
PAEno data46 Bit
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
Secure Keyno data+
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133
Maximum memory size1 TB1.5 TB
Max memory channels64
Maximum memory bandwidth115.212 GB/s68.3 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4840

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 Silver 4208 7.08
+12.4%
Xeon E5-2630L v4 6.30

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 Silver 4208 11247
+12.5%
Xeon E5-2630L v4 10000

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 7.08 6.30
Recency 2 April 2019 20 June 2016
Physical cores 8 10
Threads 16 20
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 55 Watt

Xeon Silver 4208 has a 12.4% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 2 years.

Xeon E5-2630L v4, on the other hand, has 25% more physical cores and 25% more threads, and 54.5% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Silver 4208 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2630L v4 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Silver 4208 and Xeon E5-2630L v4, 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 Silver 4208
Xeon Silver 4208
Intel Xeon E5-2630L v4
Xeon E5-2630L v4

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.


3.4 38 votes

Rate Xeon Silver 4208 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
5 14 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2630L v4 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Silver 4208 or Xeon E5-2630L v4, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.