Intel Pentium Silver N6005 vs Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 Comparison

The Intel Pentium Silver N6005 and the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 are both four-core, four-thread processors, but they could hardly be more different in their origins and intended roles. The data shows a clear, if narrow, performance hierarchy, yet the story is less about raw speed and more about the architectural philosophies that separate a 10-watt mobile chip from a 140-watt workstation part.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the Intel Pentium Silver N6005 wins every single head-to-head comparison in the Cinebench suite. This is a clean sweep, with the N6005 taking all six tests. The wins are consistent, ranging from a 5.9% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core to a 6.8% margin in Cinebench R15 single-core. The other tests show a 6% lead in both Cinebench R20 multi-core and single-core, and a 6% and 6.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core and single-core, respectively.

This means the N6005 is the faster processor for all measured rendering workloads. Its advantage is modest but uniform across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks. The Xeon E5-1607 v3, despite having a higher base clock and a much larger cache, cannot overcome the architectural efficiency of the newer Tremont cores in the Pentium.

The Xeon E5-1607 v3 fails to secure a win in any of the six tests. Its nearest rival data shows it is essentially tied with the N6005, with an average benchmark score of 1212 versus 1218, a delta of just 0.5%. This suggests that in the broader context of all CPUs, these two processors occupy the same performance tier, but the Pentium holds a slight edge in every measured scenario.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental gulf between these chips lies in their design targets. The N6005 is built on Intel's 10 nm process using the Tremont architecture, codenamed Jasper Lake. It is a modern, efficient design intended for mobile devices, with a paltry 10-watt TDP. In contrast, the Xeon E5-1607 v3 is a relic of the 22 nm Haswell generation, specifically Haswell-EP, designed for servers and workstations. Its 140-watt TDP is 14 times higher, reflecting a completely different era of power delivery and thermal management.

The die sizes tell a dramatic story. The N6005 has a die size of 63.8 mm², while the Xeon E5-1607 v3 has a die size of 356 mm². The Xeon's transistor count is listed at 2,600 million, a figure not provided for the Pentium. This massive silicon area and transistor budget on the Xeon were used to enable a quad-channel memory bus and 40 PCIe lanes, features that are entirely absent on the N6005.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. The N6005 has 1.5 MB of shared L2 cache and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon, however, has 256 KB of L2 cache per core (totaling 1 MB) and a much larger 10 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is a classic server feature, designed to hold more working data for complex workloads, but it does not translate into a performance win here.

The memory support is another clear divergence. The N6005 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration with 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon supports only DDR4 but in a quad-channel configuration, yielding 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for error-sensitive workstation tasks, while the N6005 does not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Pentium Silver N6005 is faster in all single-core tests. It scores 63 in Cinebench R15, 263 in R20, and 627 in R23, compared to the Xeon E5-1607 v3's 59, 248, and 591, respectively.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1607 v3 have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Xeon E5-1607 v3 has no integrated graphics. The N6005 includes UHD Graphics 32EU.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1607 v3 provides a higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s due to its quad-channel memory bus. The N6005 offers 46.9 GB/s via a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Pentium Silver N6005 does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The N6005 has an average benchmark score of 1218, while the Xeon E5-1607 v3 has an average score of 1212. This places them in the same 34th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life products. The Xeon E5-1607 v3 was released on September 7, 2014, while no release date is given for the N6005.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The N6005 has a base clock of 2000 MHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz, while the Xeon E5-1607 v3 has a higher base clock of 3.10 GHz but no boost clock capability. The TDP difference is stark: 10 watts for the N6005 versus 140 watts for the Xeon.

Their sockets are incompatible: the N6005 uses Intel BGA 1338, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The process nodes differ (10 nm vs 22 nm), as do their architectures (Tremont vs Haswell). The L2 cache is 1.5 MB shared on the N6005 versus 256 KB per core on the Xeon, and the L3 cache is 4 MB shared versus 10 MB shared.

PCIe support is a major differentiator. The N6005 provides 8 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Xeon provides 40 lanes. The memory bus is dual-channel for the N6005 and quad-channel for the Xeon. The N6005 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4, while the Xeon supports only DDR4. The N6005 has integrated graphics, the Xeon does not. The market segments are also different: Mobile for the N6005 and Server/Workstation for the Xeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results consistently favor the Intel Pentium Silver N6005. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the N6005 scores 63 against the Xeon's 59, a 6.8% advantage. This is a notable result, as it shows that even without a boost clock, the Xeon's higher 3.10 GHz base frequency cannot match the per-core efficiency of the N6005's Tremont cores.

In multi-core tests, the N6005 also leads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 447 versus 422, a 5.9% win. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 1866 versus 1761, a 6% lead. The most demanding test, Cinebench R23 multi-core, shows the N6005 scoring 4444 against the Xeon's 4193, another 6% advantage. The single-core results for R20 and R23 mirror this, with the N6005 winning 263 to 248 (6%) and 627 to 591 (6.1%), respectively.

The Xeon's higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and larger 10 MB L3 cache do not provide any measurable benefit in these Cinebench workloads. The N6005's newer architecture and higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz appear to be the decisive factors. The data indicates that for this specific benchmark suite, the Pentium Silver N6005 is simply the more capable processor, despite its far lower power envelope.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear verdict: the Intel Pentium Silver N6005 is the superior processor for the tested Cinebench workloads, winning all six head-to-head comparisons. It achieves this while consuming only 10 watts, a fraction of the Xeon's 140 watts. This makes the N6005 an intriguing choice for scenarios where power efficiency and adequate single-thread performance are paramount, such as in a fanless mobile device or a low-power home server.

The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3, however, is not without its own merits. It offers ECC memory support, a quad-channel memory bus, and 40 PCIe lanes. These features are essential for a workstation or server environment where data integrity and expandability are more critical than raw Cinebench scores. Users requiring ECC memory and extensive I/O capabilities would be drawn to the Xeon, even if its rendering performance is slightly lower.

For a user building a system around these CPUs, the decision hinges on the platform. If the goal is a low-power, compact system with integrated graphics and passable performance, the N6005 is the clear winner. If the goal is a workstation with ECC memory and high-bandwidth storage or expansion cards, the Xeon E5-1607 v3 is the only option that provides those features, despite its lower benchmark scores and significantly higher power draw. The average scores are nearly identical, but the use cases are worlds apart.