Intel Xeon D-1581 vs Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 and Intel Xeon D-1581 are two very different server processors that land in the same performance tier. The E5-1680 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, but its margins are consistently razor-thin, ranging from 0.6% to 0.9%. The D-1581 counters with double the core count, a dramatically lower TDP, and a more modern process node. The data suggests a fundamental trade-off: the E5-1680 v3 offers marginally better single-threaded and multi-threaded execution, while the D-1581 provides far greater core density and efficiency in a compact BGA package. Neither chip dominates the other by a meaningful margin in raw compute; the selection should hinge on platform requirements, power constraints, and workload scaling rather than benchmark score differences.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3, which wins every Cinebench iteration from R15 to R23, in both multi-core and single-core tests. However, the largest deltaPct is just 0.9% in Cinebench R20 single-core, and the average performance gap across all tests is under one percent. This means that for purely CPU-bound rendering workloads, the E5-1680 v3 is technically faster, but the difference is practically imperceptible in real-world use.

The Intel Xeon D-1581 is the better choice for systems where physical space, cooling, and power draw are constrained. Its 65 W TDP is less than half of the E5-1680 v3’s 140 W TDP, and it uses a BGA 1667 socket, which is soldered directly to the board—eliminating the need for a large cooler and enabling dense, low-profile server designs. The E5-1680 v3, by contrast, requires an Intel Socket 2011-3 platform with a dedicated cooler and offers an unlocked multiplier, which is unusual for a Xeon part.

For users who prioritize maximum per-core performance and the ability to overclock, the E5-1680 v3 is the data-backed pick. For those who need 16 cores and 32 threads in a low-power, embedded-friendly package, the D-1581 is the obvious choice. The E5-1680 v3 is end-of-life, while the D-1581 remains active in production, which may influence long-term availability decisions.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing nodes. The E5-1680 v3 is a Haswell-EP part built on Intel’s 22 nm process, while the D-1581 is a Broadwell-DE part on the 14 nm node. This node shrink is significant: the D-1581 packs 3,200 million transistors into a 246 mm² die, whereas the E5-1680 v3 contains 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die. The newer process allows the D-1581 to double the core count while reducing TDP from 140 W to 65 W.

Core configurations differ substantially. The E5-1680 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The D-1581 has 16 cores and 32 threads, but clocks are much lower: 1.80 GHz base and 2.40 GHz boost. This explains why the D-1581’s multi-core scores are nearly identical to the E5-1680 v3 despite having twice the cores—the lower clock speed offsets the core advantage.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The E5-1680 v3 uses a shared 20 MB L3 cache, while the D-1581 allocates 1.5 MB of L3 per core, which totals 24 MB across 16 cores. Both have identical L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) configurations. Memory support differs: the E5-1680 v3 runs quad-channel DDR4 with a rated bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, whereas the D-1581 supports dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 and has no listed bandwidth figure. The E5-1680 v3 also offers more PCIe lanes (40 versus 24), both Gen 3.

Other notable differences: the E5-1680 v3 has an unlocked multiplier, while the D-1581 is locked. Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics. The D-1581’s release date is later (2016-02-23) compared to the E5-1680 v3 (2014-09-07), and the D-1581 is still active while the E5-1680 v3 is end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark deltas, the E5-1680 v3 wins in every measured category. The largest advantage is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it leads by 0.9% (669 versus 663). The smallest edge is in R15 single-core, where it leads by 0.6% (160 versus 159). Multi-core wins are consistent at 0.8% across R15, R20, and R23. These margins are so small that the E5-1680 v3’s victory is more symbolic than practical—it wins, but not by a margin that would justify choosing it for compute performance alone.

The D-1581 wins in efficiency and density. Its 65 W TDP is less than half of the E5-1680 v3’s 140 W, and its BGA 1667 socket enables a completely different class of system design—one where the CPU is integrated onto the board without a socket. This makes the D-1581 suitable for fanless or low-profile enclosures, network appliances, and storage servers where power and heat are critical constraints. The D-1581 also has a smaller die (246 mm² versus 356 mm²) and a more recent 14 nm process, which typically yields better performance-per-watt.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the E5-1680 v3’s higher base and boost clocks (3.20 GHz and 3.80 GHz versus 1.80 GHz and 2.40 GHz) give it a clear theoretical advantage, even though the Cinebench single-core scores show only a 0.6-0.9% difference. The E5-1680 v3’s quad-channel memory and higher PCIe lane count also make it more suitable for memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads or systems with multiple high-speed expansion cards.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 scores 11289 versus 11197 for the Intel Xeon D-1581, a 0.8% difference. This is the largest multi-core gap in the head-to-head results.

Q: Does the D-1581 have more cores?

A: Yes, the D-1581 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the E5-1680 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. However, the D-1581’s clock speeds are much lower (1.80 GHz base, 2.40 GHz boost) compared to the E5-1680 v3 (3.20 GHz base, 3.80 GHz boost).

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The D-1581 has a TDP of 65 W, while the E5-1680 v3 has a TDP of 140 W. The D-1581 consumes less than half the power budget.

Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: The E5-1680 v3 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable. The D-1581 has a locked multiplier, so it cannot be overclocked.

Q: Which CPU supports more memory channels?

A: The E5-1680 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The D-1581 supports dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4, with no bandwidth figure provided in the data.

Q: What is the difference in PCIe lane count?

A: The E5-1680 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the D-1581 provides 24 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent. Across all six Cinebench tests, the E5-1680 v3 wins by a margin that never exceeds 0.9%. The multi-core tests show a uniform 0.8% advantage: R15 (1137 versus 1128), R20 (4741 versus 4702), and R23 (11289 versus 11197). The single-core tests are slightly more variable: R15 shows a 0.6% lead (160 versus 159), R20 shows 0.9% (669 versus 663), and R23 shows 0.8% (1593 versus 1580).

These numbers tell a clear story. The D-1581, with double the cores, nearly matches the E5-1680 v3 in multi-threaded rendering. In R23 multi-core, the D-1581 trails by only 92 points out of 11289—a fraction of a percent. This confirms the D-1581’s core count compensating for its much lower clock speed. The E5-1680 v3’s single-core wins are similarly marginal, with the largest delta being 6 points in R20.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this parity: the E5-1680 v3 averages 3265, while the D-1581 averages 3238, a difference of 27 points (0.8%). Both chips sit at the 53rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are squarely mid-pack in the broader market. The nearest rivals for the E5-1680 v3 include the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 (3264, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 (3277, -0.4% delta). For the D-1581, the closest competitors are the AMD Ryzen 5 1600X (3249, -0.3% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 7 4800U (3218, +0.6% delta).

The practical takeaway from the head-to-head data is that neither processor offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in Cinebench workloads. The E5-1680 v3 wins outright, but its margins are within noise for most applications. The D-1581’s value proposition is not in beating the E5-1680 v3, but in delivering near-identical performance at a fraction of the power and with twice the core count for parallel workloads that scale better than Cinebench. The data shows a tie in compute capability, with the decision resting on platform and efficiency preferences.