
Xeon E5-2673 v4
Popular choices:

Xeon Silver 4216
Popular choices:
Performance Spectrum - CPU
About PassMark
PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.
Head-to-Head Verdict, Benchmarks, Value & Long-Term Outlook
This comparison brings together gaming FPS, productivity performance, platform differences, power efficiency, pricing context, and upgrade path so you can see which CPU actually makes more sense.
Xeon E5-2673 v4
2016Why buy it
- ✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
- ✅+127.3% larger total L3 cache (50 MB vs 22 MB).
Trade-offs
- ❌35% higher power demand at 135W vs 100W.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Xeon Silver 4216
2019Why buy it
- ✅Draws 100W instead of 135W, a 35W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (21,022 vs 21,277).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 50 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $1,011 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2673 v4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Xeon E5-2673 v4
2016Xeon Silver 4216
2019Why buy it
- ✅+1.2% higher PassMark.
- ✅+127.3% larger total L3 cache (50 MB vs 22 MB).
Why buy it
- ✅Draws 100W instead of 135W, a 35W reduction.
- ✅100+% more PCIe lanes (48 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
- ✅AVX-512 support for select workstation, AI, and scientific workloads.
Trade-offs
- ❌35% higher power demand at 135W vs 100W.
- ❌No AVX-512 support for niche heavy compute workloads where it can matter.
Trade-offs
- ❌Lower PassMark (21,022 vs 21,277).
- ❌Smaller total L3 cache (22 MB vs 50 MB).
- ❌Launch MSRP is still $1,011 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2673 v4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
Quick Answers
So, is Xeon Silver 4216 better than Xeon E5-2673 v4?
Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
Games Benchmarks
To accurately isolate CPU performance, all benchmarks below use an NVIDIA RTX 4090 as the reference GPU. This eliminates GPU-side bottlenecks and highlights pure processing throughput differences between the CPUs.
Note: Real-world results may vary based on your actual GPU. CPU performance impact is more visible in processing-intensive titles and high-refresh-rate gaming scenarios.

Path of Exile 2
| Preset | Xeon E5-2673 v4 | Xeon Silver 4216 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 180 FPS | 174 FPS |
| medium | 157 FPS | 139 FPS |
| high | 124 FPS | 111 FPS |
| ultra | 99 FPS | 87 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 149 FPS | 139 FPS |
| medium | 125 FPS | 109 FPS |
| high | 95 FPS | 86 FPS |
| ultra | 77 FPS | 68 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 69 FPS | 66 FPS |
| medium | 61 FPS | 55 FPS |
| high | 47 FPS | 43 FPS |
| ultra | 38 FPS | 34 FPS |

Counter-Strike 2
| Preset | Xeon E5-2673 v4 | Xeon Silver 4216 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 365 FPS | 188 FPS |
| medium | 332 FPS | 167 FPS |
| high | 280 FPS | 145 FPS |
| ultra | 225 FPS | 118 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 314 FPS | 162 FPS |
| medium | 285 FPS | 148 FPS |
| high | 243 FPS | 128 FPS |
| ultra | 189 FPS | 104 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 196 FPS | 105 FPS |
| medium | 179 FPS | 97 FPS |
| high | 153 FPS | 85 FPS |
| ultra | 121 FPS | 68 FPS |

League of Legends
| Preset | Xeon E5-2673 v4 | Xeon Silver 4216 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 532 FPS | 526 FPS |
| medium | 505 FPS | 526 FPS |
| high | 458 FPS | 526 FPS |
| ultra | 410 FPS | 526 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 522 FPS | 526 FPS |
| medium | 436 FPS | 526 FPS |
| high | 389 FPS | 526 FPS |
| ultra | 349 FPS | 526 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 400 FPS | 473 FPS |
| medium | 322 FPS | 372 FPS |
| high | 287 FPS | 331 FPS |
| ultra | 239 FPS | 269 FPS |

Valorant
| Preset | Xeon E5-2673 v4 | Xeon Silver 4216 |
|---|---|---|
| 1080p | ||
| low | 532 FPS | 526 FPS |
| medium | 532 FPS | 526 FPS |
| high | 532 FPS | 526 FPS |
| ultra | 532 FPS | 526 FPS |
| 1440p | ||
| low | 532 FPS | 526 FPS |
| medium | 532 FPS | 526 FPS |
| high | 532 FPS | 508 FPS |
| ultra | 456 FPS | 430 FPS |
| 4K | ||
| low | 518 FPS | 466 FPS |
| medium | 465 FPS | 417 FPS |
| high | 411 FPS | 372 FPS |
| ultra | 352 FPS | 321 FPS |
Technical Specifications
Side-by-side comparison of Xeon E5-2673 v4 and Xeon Silver 4216

Xeon E5-2673 v4
Xeon E5-2673 v4
The Xeon E5-2673 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 20 cores and 40 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 50 MB. L2 cache: 5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: FCLGA2011-3. Thermal design power (TDP): 135 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 21,277 points. Launch price was $800.

Xeon Silver 4216
Xeon Silver 4216
The Xeon Silver 4216 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Cascade Lake (2019−2020) architecture. It features 16 cores and 32 threads. Base frequency is 2.1 GHz, with boost up to 3.2 GHz. L3 cache: 22 MB. L2 cache: 16 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA3647. Thermal design power (TDP): 100 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 21,022 points. Launch price was $1,002.
Processing Power
The Xeon E5-2673 v4 packs 20 cores / 40 threads, while the Xeon Silver 4216 offers 16 cores / 32 threads — the Xeon E5-2673 v4 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the Xeon E5-2673 v4 versus 3.2 GHz on the Xeon Silver 4216 — a 32.7% clock advantage for the Xeon Silver 4216 (base: 2.3 GHz vs 2.1 GHz). The Xeon E5-2673 v4 uses the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon Silver 4216 uses Cascade Lake (2019−2020) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon E5-2673 v4 scores 21,277 against the Xeon Silver 4216's 21,022 — a 1.2% lead for the Xeon E5-2673 v4. L3 cache: 50 MB on the Xeon E5-2673 v4 vs 22 MB on the Xeon Silver 4216.
| Feature | Xeon E5-2673 v4 | Xeon Silver 4216 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores / Threads | 20 / 40+25% | 16 / 32 |
| Boost Clock | 2.3 GHz | 3.2 GHz+39% |
| Base Clock | 2.3 GHz+10% | 2.1 GHz |
| L3 Cache | 50 MB+127% | 22 MB |
| L2 Cache | 5 MB | 16 MB+220% |
| Process | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Architecture | Broadwell (2015−2019) | Cascade Lake (2019−2020) |
| PassMark | 21,277+1% | 21,022 |
| Cinebench R23 Multi | — | 16,500 |
| Geekbench 6 Single | — | 1,013 |
| Geekbench 6 Multi | — | 12,286 |
Memory & Platform
The Xeon E5-2673 v4 uses the FCLGA2011-3 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon Silver 4216 uses LGA3647 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.
| Feature | Xeon E5-2673 v4 | Xeon Silver 4216 |
|---|---|---|
| Socket | FCLGA2011-3 | LGA3647 |
| PCIe Generation | PCIe 3.0 | PCIe 3.0 |
| Max RAM Speed | — | DDR4-2400 |
| Max RAM Capacity | — | 1024 GB |
| RAM Channels | — | 6 |
| ECC Support | — | Yes |
| PCIe Lanes | — | 48 |
Advanced Features
Virtualization: not specified (Xeon E5-2673 v4) / VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Xeon Silver 4216). Primary use case: Xeon Silver 4216 targets Server / Edge computing. Direct competitor: Xeon Silver 4216 rivals EPYC 7262.
| Feature | Xeon E5-2673 v4 | Xeon Silver 4216 |
|---|---|---|
| Integrated GPU | — | No |
| Unlocked | — | No |
| AVX-512 | — | Yes |
| Virtualization | — | VT-x, VT-d, EPT |
| Target Use | — | Server / Edge computing |
Top Performing CPUs
The most powerful cpus ranked by PassMark CPU Mark benchmark scores.












