Intel Xeon D-2733NT vs Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon D-2733NT wins every single head-to-head test against the Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3, yet the margins are extraordinarily narrow. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the D-2733NT’s advantage never exceeds 0.7%, making this one of the closest processor matchups in the database.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the D-2733NT edges ahead in Cinebench R15 with a score of 1388 against the E5-2669 v3’s 1379, a delta of just 0.7%. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the D-2733NT posts 5785 versus 5749, a 0.6% lead. The R23 multi-core test shows 13775 for the D-2733NT against 13690 for the E5-2669 v3, again a 0.6% margin. These are not the kind of sweeping victories that typically define a generational leap; rather, they suggest two processors that are effectively trading blows in sustained multi-threaded rendering.

Single-core results tell the same story with even smaller gaps. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the D-2733NT scores 195 versus 194, a 0.5% lead. The R20 single-core test shows 816 against 811, a 0.6% advantage. R23 single-core gives us 1944 versus 1932, once more a 0.6% delta. What is striking here is that the D-2733NT, despite having fewer cores (8 versus 12), still manages to secure these wins across the board. The data implies that architectural efficiency is compensating for a core-count deficit.

When placed in the broader context of their respective rival groups, both processors sit at the 57th percentile among all CPUs. The D-2733NT’s average benchmark score is 3984, with its nearest rival being the Intel Xeon E-2336 at 3985 (0% delta), followed by the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G at 3977 (0.2% behind). The E5-2669 v3 averages 3959, with the AMD Ryzen 3 7330U at 3958 as its closest competitor (0% delta). The two processors are not only close to each other; they occupy nearly identical positions in the performance hierarchy.

The win count is unambiguous: 6 wins for the D-2733NT, 0 for the E5-2669 v3. Yet the average margin across all tests is under 0.6%. This is a sweep in name only; the data shows two CPUs that would be nearly indistinguishable in real-world use, at least within the Cinebench suite.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon D-2733NT wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1944 versus the E5-2669 v3’s 1932, a 0.6% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows 195 versus 194, a 0.5% lead.

Q: How does the multi-core performance compare given the core count difference?

A: Despite having 8 cores versus the E5-2669 v3’s 12 cores, the D-2733NT wins all three multi-core tests. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 at 0.7% (1388 versus 1379), while R20 and R23 both show 0.6% leads.

Q: Are these processors comparable in overall benchmark standing?

A: Yes. Both sit at the 57th percentile among all CPUs. The D-2733NT has an average benchmark score of 3984, while the E5-2669 v3 averages 3959, a difference of only 25 points.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor?

A: The D-2733NT’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E-2336 with an average score of 3985 (0% delta). The E5-2669 v3’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 3 7330U at 3958 (0% delta).

Q: Does the E5-2669 v3 win any benchmark category?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 6 wins for the D-2733NT and 0 for the E5-2669 v3 across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core.

Q: How close are the two processors in the largest benchmark gap?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the D-2733NT leads by 0.7%. Every other test shows a 0.5% or 0.6% difference, indicating exceptional parity.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two Xeon processors is substantial, even if the benchmark results are not. The D-2733NT is built on Ice Lake-D architecture using a 10 nm process node, while the E5-2669 v3 relies on the older Haswell-EP design on a 22 nm node. This process shrink is one of the primary reasons the D-2733NT can match a processor with 50% more cores.

Cache hierarchies differ considerably. The D-2733NT allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 15 MB of shared L3. The E5-2669 v3 provides 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 30 MB of shared L3. The E5-2669 v3’s L3 cache is double the size, yet this advantage does not translate into benchmark victories, suggesting the D-2733NT’s newer memory architecture and higher per-core efficiency compensate for the smaller cache.

The D-2733NT’s transistor count is not listed, but the E5-2669 v3 packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. That die size and transistor count reflect the older, less dense 22 nm process. The D-2733NT’s 10 nm node would logically allow for a much smaller die, though that figure is not provided in the data.

Memory support also diverges. The D-2733NT supports DDR4 with quad-channel memory and a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The E5-2669 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also quad-channel, but with a lower bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. That 17 GB/s bandwidth gap could matter in memory-intensive workloads, though it does not appear to shift Cinebench results significantly.

PCIe capabilities favor the D-2733NT with Gen 4 support across 32 lanes, while the E5-2669 v3 offers Gen 3 across 40 lanes. The newer standard brings higher per-lane bandwidth, which could influence I/O-heavy server tasks even if the lane count is lower.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every major specification. Core and thread counts lead the list: the D-2733NT has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E5-2669 v3 offers 12 cores and 24 threads. This 50% core advantage for the E5-2669 v3 is notable, yet it fails to produce a benchmark win.

Clock speeds differ modestly. The D-2733NT runs at 2.10 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The E5-2669 v3 has a higher base clock of 2.30 GHz but a lower boost of 3.10 GHz. The D-2733NT’s higher boost clock likely explains its single-core victories, while the E5-2669 v3’s extra cores should help multi-core—yet they do not.

Thermal design power is a significant differentiator. The D-2733NT draws 80 W, while the E5-2669 v3 consumes 120 W. That 40 W gap means the D-2733NT achieves its benchmark parity at two-thirds the power envelope, a meaningful efficiency advantage for dense server deployments.

Sockets are entirely incompatible: the D-2733NT uses Intel BGA 2579, while the E5-2669 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The D-2733NT is a surface-mounted part, whereas the E5-2669 v3 is socketed and upgradeable. Production status also differs—the D-2733NT is Active, while the E5-2669 v3 is End-of-life.

The process node gap (10 nm versus 22 nm) is the most fundamental difference, influencing everything from power draw to transistor density. The D-2733NT’s part number is SRLCJ; the E5-2669 v3’s is SR1XU. Neither processor has a listed launch MSRP, and both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The D-2733NT wins every benchmark in the head-to-head data, but the margins are thin enough that the practical takeaway is more nuanced. In single-core performance, the D-2733NT’s higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz gives it a consistent, if small, edge across all three Cinebench generations. For workloads that are lightly threaded or latency-sensitive, the D-2733NT is the safer pick based on the data.

In multi-core performance, the D-2733NT also wins, but the E5-2669 v3’s 12 cores and 30 MB of L3 cache suggest it could pull ahead in scenarios not captured by Cinebench. The benchmark suite shows only a 0.6-0.7% gap, which is within the range of run-to-run variance. The E5-2669 v3’s larger cache and extra cores imply it might handle certain server workloads—particularly those with high cache reuse—more gracefully, even if the data does not prove it.

The D-2733NT wins decisively on efficiency. With an 80 W TDP versus 120 W, and a 10 nm process versus 22 nm, the D-2733NT delivers essentially identical Cinebench scores at lower power. For power-constrained environments or dense blade servers, this is a clear advantage.

The E5-2669 v3 wins on platform flexibility in one respect: it supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, allowing integration into older systems. The D-2733NT is DDR4-only. However, the D-2733NT counters with higher memory bandwidth (85.3 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s) and PCIe Gen 4 support.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon D-2733NT. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, achieves the same 57th percentile standing, and does so with a 40 W lower TDP and a 12 nm smaller process node. For new deployments where power efficiency and modern features matter, the D-2733NT is the logical choice.

The E5-2669 v3, while end-of-life, remains competitive in raw compute. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with 30 MB of L3 cache, make it a plausible option for existing Socket 2011-3 platforms or for workloads that favor core count over architectural efficiency. The benchmark delta of less than 1% means that in practice, users upgrading from an E5-2669 v3 to a D-2733NT would see negligible performance change in Cinebench-type workloads.

Who should pick which? Organizations building new systems with an eye toward power budgets, Gen 4 PCIe, and higher memory bandwidth should choose the D-2733NT. Those maintaining legacy infrastructure or needing dual-channel memory flexibility (DDR3 or DDR4) might find the E5-2669 v3 sufficient, though its end-of-life status argues against new purchases. The data cannot justify a large performance-based preference; it can justify a clear efficiency-based one.