Key Differences
In short, we have a clear winner — Ryzen Threadripper 3960X outperforms the more expensive Xeon E5-2699A v4 on the selected game parameters, and is also a better bang for your buck! The better performing Ryzen Threadripper 3960X is 1126 days newer than the more expensive Xeon E5-2699A v4.
Advantages of Xeon E5-2699A v4
- Consumes up to 48% less energy than AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3960X - 145 vs 280 Watts
Advantages of Ryzen Threadripper 3960X
- Performs up to 6% better in No Man's Sky than Xeon E5-2699A v4 - 181 vs 170 FPS
- Up to 44% cheaper than Xeon E5-2699A v4 - $1070.00 vs $1900.00
- Up to 47% better value when playing No Man's Sky than Xeon E5-2699A v4 - $5.91 vs $11.18 per FPS
- Can execute more multi-threaded tasks simultaneously than Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 - 48 vs 44 threads
No Man's Sky
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Buy for $1,900 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 249 minutes ago
Desktop • Nov 25th, 2019
FPS
181
100%
Value, $/FPS
$5.91/FPS
100%
Price, $
$1070
100%
FPS and Value Winner
Buy for $1,070 on Amazon
In Stock
Updated 250 minutes ago
My Games
With selected game settings
Resolution
1920 x 1080
Game Graphics
Ultra
Desktop • Oct 25th, 2016
Desktop • Nov 25th, 2019
Geekbench 5 Benchmarks
Xeon E5-2699A v4 | vs | Ryzen Threadripper 3960X |
---|---|---|
Oct 25th, 2016 | Release Date | Nov 25th, 2019 |
Xeon E5 | Collection | Ryzen Threadripper |
Broadwell | Codename | Castle Peak |
Intel Socket 2011-3 | Socket | AMD Socket TRX4 |
Desktop | Segment | Desktop |
22 | Cores | 24 |
44 | Threads | 48 |
2.4 GHz | Base Clock Speed | 3.8 GHz |
3.6 GHz | Turbo Clock Speed | 4.5 GHz |
145 W | TDP | 280 W |
14 nm | Process Size | 7 nm |
24.0x | Multiplier | 38.0x |
None | Integrated Graphics | None |
No | Overclockable | Yes |