Intel Xeon E-2136 vs Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 Comparison
Intel Xeon E-2136
Xeon E5-1660 v3
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Xeon E-2136 vs Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The recorded data tells a remarkably consistent story across every Cinebench iteration. The Intel Xeon E-2136 wins all six head-to-head matchups, but the margins are narrow enough to invite scrutiny. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E-2136 scores 1112 against 1074 for the E5-1660 v3, a delta of 3.4 percent. The single-core R15 test shows 156 versus 151, a 3.2 percent gap. These are not overwhelming victories; they suggest a competitive pairing where architectural differences matter more than raw core counts.
Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The E-2136 posts 4636 in multi-core versus 4475, and 654 in single-core versus 631, both reflecting a 3.5 percent advantage. The R23 results mirror this exactly: 11040 against 10656 in multi-core and 1558 against 1504 in single-core, again a 3.5 percent delta. The consistency of that 3.5 percent figure across three generations of Cinebench is striking. It implies a stable performance ceiling difference, not a workload-specific quirk.
What makes these numbers interesting is the context. The E5-1660 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E-2136 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite the two-core deficit, the newer chip wins every multi-threaded test. This suggests the E-2136’s higher boost clock, 4.50 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, compensates for the missing cores. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the E-2136 averages 3193 with a 53rd percentile ranking, while the E5-1660 v3 averages 3082 with a 52nd percentile. The gap in average score is 3.5 percent, consistent with the head-to-head deltas.
The nearest rivals for each chip provide additional perspective. The E5-1660 v3 sits within a tight cluster: the Core i7-6850K averages 3079 (0.1 percent behind), the Core i7-8700B averages 3086 (0.1 percent ahead), the Xeon W-2133 averages 3087 (0.2 percent ahead), and the Ryzen 7 1800X averages 3068 (0.4 percent behind). The E-2136’s rivals are similarly close: the Core i7-9700E averages 3197 (0.1 percent ahead), the Core i3-13100T averages 3198 (0.2 percent ahead), the Core i5-1240P averages 3202 (0.3 percent ahead), and the Atom P5342 averages 3217 (0.7 percent ahead). Both chips are essentially mid-pack performers, with the E-2136 occupying a slightly higher tier.
FAQ
Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench R23?
A: The Intel Xeon E-2136 wins with a score of 11040, compared to 10656 for the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3, a 3.5 percent advantage.
Q: How do the single-core scores compare in Cinebench R15?
A: The E-2136 scores 156, while the E5-1660 v3 scores 151, giving the E-2136 a 3.2 percent lead.
Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?
A: The E5-1660 v3 averages 3082, and the E-2136 averages 3193. This places the E-2136 about 3.5 percent higher in overall performance.
Q: Does the E5-1660 v3 win any head-to-head benchmark?
A: No. Across all six Cinebench tests (R15, R20, and R23, each in multi-core and single-core), the E-2136 wins every matchup.
Q: How does the core count difference affect the results?
A: The E5-1660 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E-2136 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the E-2136 wins all multi-core tests, indicating its higher boost clock (4.50 GHz versus 3.50 GHz) offsets the core deficit.
Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?
A: The E5-1660 v3 sits at the 52nd percentile versus all CPUs, while the E-2136 sits at the 53rd percentile. Both are near the median of the database, with the E-2136 slightly higher.
Architecture Differences
The two processors represent different design eras within Intel’s lineup. The E5-1660 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP codename, built on a 22 nm process node. It is part of the Xeon E5 generation. The E-2136 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-S WS, built on a 14 nm process node, and belongs to the Xeon E-2100 series. The process shrink from 22 nm to 14 nm is a fundamental difference, allowing the newer chip to pack more performance into a smaller physical footprint.
The die sizes tell the story of different design priorities. The E5-1660 v3 has a die size of 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors. The E-2136 has a die size of 154 mm², with no transistor count recorded in the database. The larger die of the E5-1660 v3 reflects its server/workstation heritage, where more physical space is allocated to cache and memory controllers. The E-2136’s smaller die is a product of the more mature 14 nm process and a more consumer-oriented design philosophy.
Cache configurations differ substantially. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache, however, is where the divergence appears: the E5-1660 v3 has 20 MB shared, while the E-2136 has 12 MB shared. The larger L3 cache on the older chip likely helps mitigate its lower clock speeds, though the benchmark data shows it is not enough to overcome the E-2136’s frequency advantage.
Memory architecture also diverges. The E5-1660 v3 supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, yielding a theoretical memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The E-2136 supports DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, with 42.7 GB/s. This is a significant difference: the older chip has roughly 60 percent more memory bandwidth available. Yet in the Cinebench workloads recorded, this bandwidth advantage does not translate into a performance win. PCIe connectivity also differs, with the E5-1660 v3 offering Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only) versus the E-2136’s Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only).
The E-2136 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics P630, while the E5-1660 v3 has no integrated graphics listed. Both support ECC memory, a requirement for server and workstation use. The E5-1660 v3 has an unlocked multiplier, while the E-2136 does not. The production status for both is end-of-life, indicating neither is a current-generation product.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ on several key specification fields. Core and thread counts are the most obvious: the E5-1660 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E-2136 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Clock speeds also diverge, with the E5-1660 v3 running at a 3.00 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, versus the E-2136’s 3.30 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost. The E-2136 has a higher base clock by 0.30 GHz and a higher boost clock by 1.00 GHz.
Thermal design power is another differentiator. The E5-1660 v3 has a TDP of 140 watts, while the E-2136 has a TDP of 80 watts. This 60-watt gap reflects the older chip’s larger die and higher power draw per thread. The sockets are incompatible: the E5-1660 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E-2136 uses Intel Socket 1151. Memory bus width differs, with quad-channel on the E5-1660 v3 and dual-channel on the E-2136. Memory bandwidth follows: 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. PCIe lanes differ as well: 40 lanes versus 16 lanes.
The process node differs as noted: 22 nm versus 14 nm. Die size differs: 356 mm² versus 154 mm². L3 cache differs: 20 MB shared versus 12 MB shared. The E-2136 has integrated graphics, the E5-1660 v3 does not. The multiplier is unlocked on the E5-1660 v3, locked on the E-2136. Release dates differ by nearly four years: September 2014 for the E5-1660 v3, July 2018 for the E-2136. The E-2136 has a launch MSRP of $289; no launch MSRP is recorded for the E5-1660 v3.
The Verdict
The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E-2136 is the faster processor across all recorded workloads. Every single head-to-head test, from Cinebench R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core configurations, goes to the E-2136 with a consistent margin of 3.2 to 3.5 percent. The average benchmark score difference, 3193 versus 3082, reinforces this conclusion. The percentile rankings, 53rd versus 52nd, put the E-2136 in a slightly higher tier of overall performance.
The interesting twist is that the E-2136 achieves this with fewer cores and threads. The 6-core, 12-thread configuration beats the 8-core, 16-thread configuration in multi-threaded tests. This points to the dominance of clock speed in these specific workloads. The 4.50 GHz boost clock of the E-2136, a full 1.00 GHz higher than the E5-1660 v3’s 3.50 GHz, appears to be the decisive factor. The older chip’s advantages, such as more L3 cache (20 MB versus 12 MB), higher memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s), and more PCIe lanes (40 versus 16), do not translate into Cinebench wins.
For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life processors, the data suggests the E-2136 is the better choice for raw computational throughput in the tested benchmarks. Its lower TDP of 80 watts versus 140 watts is an additional consideration, though the database does not record pricing for the E5-1660 v3 to allow a direct comparison. The E5-1660 v3’s strengths lie in its memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count, which may matter for specific workstation workloads not represented in the Cinebench suite.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Xeon E-2136 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It leads in multi-core performance across all three Cinebench versions: R15 (1112 versus 1074), R20 (4636 versus 4475), and R23 (11040 versus 10656). It also leads in single-core performance: R15 (156 versus 151), R20 (654 versus 631), and R23 (1558 versus 1504). The consistency of the 3.5 percent margin in the newer tests suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly. The E-2136 also wins on efficiency metrics implied by the data, delivering higher scores with a lower TDP (80 watts versus 140 watts).
The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 does not win any recorded benchmark, but it holds structural advantages that could matter outside the Cinebench suite. Its quad-channel memory bus provides 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, versus 42.7 GB/s for the E-2136. Its 40 PCIe lanes (Gen 3) dwarf the 16 lanes of the E-2136, which could be critical for multi-GPU or high-bandwidth I/O workloads. Its larger 20 MB L3 cache, versus 12 MB on the E-2136, may benefit workloads with high cache reuse. The unlocked multiplier on the E5-1660 v3 also offers overclocking potential, which the locked E-2136 does not. For users whose workloads are memory-bandwidth-bound or I/O-heavy, the E5-1660 v3’s platform features could prove more valuable than its lower Cinebench scores. For general compute and single-threaded responsiveness, the data clearly favors the E-2136.