CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2136 and Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 are both end-of-life server/workstation parts that land in the same performance percentile, but they achieve that status through completely opposite design philosophies. The E-2136 wins every single benchmark in this comparison, yet its margins are remarkably slim, never exceeding 1.3% in any test. The E5-2650 v4 counters with double the cores, double the threads, and nearly double the L3 cache, but its much lower clock speeds erase that theoretical advantage in the Cinebench workloads measured. The data shows a clear split: the E-2136 is the pick for raw per-core performance and newer platform features, while the E5-2650 v4 justifies its existence through sheer core count and memory bandwidth for heavily threaded workloads that scale beyond what these benchmarks capture.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E-2136 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons in this dataset. That is the entire win column for the E-2136: 6 wins, 0 losses. Its largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it scores 1112 against the E5-2650 v4's 1098, a 1.3% advantage. Every other multi-core test, R20 and R23, shows the same pattern, with the E-2136 leading by 1.2% in both. Single-core tests tell a similar story: the E-2136 leads by 0.6% in R15 single-core (156 vs 155) and by 1.2% in both R20 and R23 single-core tests.

The E5-2650 v4 wins no benchmarks outright, but it wins on specification-based advantages that these tests do not fully exercise. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads, which means workloads that scale linearly with core count, rendering, simulation, virtualization, will likely favor the E5-2650 v4 despite its lower clocks. The E5-2650 v4 also offers quad-channel memory support with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, compared to dual-channel 42.7 GB/s on the E-2136. For memory-bound server workloads, that bandwidth advantage is substantial, even if Cinebench does not reflect it.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 14 nm process node, but they come from different architectural families. The E-2136 uses Coffee Lake-S WS architecture, a workstation variant of the mainstream Coffee Lake design, while the E5-2650 v4 uses Broadwell-EP, Intel's enterprise platform architecture. The E-2136 is part of the Xeon E-2100 series, launched in July 2018, whereas the E5-2650 v4 belongs to the Broadwell-EP generation, released in March 2016.

The physical differences are stark. The E-2136 has a die size of 154 mm² with no transistor count listed in the data. The E5-2650 v4 has a 246 mm² die containing 3,400 million transistors, a much larger, more complex chip. The E-2136 uses the Intel Socket 1151 platform, while the E5-2650 v4 requires Intel Socket 2011-3. This platform difference matters: the E-2136 pairs with mainstream motherboards, while the E5-2650 v4 demands the more expensive enterprise platform.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is where they diverge: the E-2136 has 12 MB shared, while the E5-2650 v4 has 30 MB shared. That 18 MB difference is substantial for workloads that benefit from large shared caches. The E-2136 includes integrated UHD Graphics P630, while the E5-2650 v4 has no integrated graphics at all. Both support DDR4 memory with ECC, but the E-2136 uses dual-channel while the E5-2650 v4 uses quad-channel. PCIe lanes also differ: the E-2136 provides 16 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the E5-2650 v4 provides 40 Gen 3 lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six Cinebench comparisons all favor the E-2136, but the margins tell a nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E-2136 scores 1112 versus 1098 for the E5-2650 v4, a 1.3% edge. That is the largest delta in the entire dataset, and it comes despite the E5-2650 v4 having double the cores. The explanation lies in clock speed: the E-2136 boosts to 4.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz on the E5-2650 v4. A 1.6 GHz boost advantage more than compensates for the core deficit in these tests.

Single-core results are closer. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 156 for the E-2136 versus 155 for the E5-2650 v4, a mere 0.6% difference. This is surprising given the massive clock advantage, but it reflects the architectural age difference: Broadwell-EP's per-core efficiency per clock is competitive with Coffee Lake in this generation. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the E-2136 scores 654 against 646, a 1.2% lead. R23 single-core shows 1558 versus 1539, again 1.2%. The consistency of these margins, 0.6% for R15, 1.2% for R20 and R23, suggests a stable performance relationship rather than workload-specific anomalies.

Multi-core results in R20 and R23 mirror the R15 pattern. R20 multi-core gives the E-2136 4636 against 4579, a 1.2% lead. R23 multi-core shows 11040 versus 10904, also 1.2%. The E-2136's average benchmark score is 3193, with a 53rd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The E5-2650 v4's average is 3154, also ranking at the 53rd percentile. Both processors sit in the same performance tier despite their different architectures.

Specification Differences

The specification table highlights where these two processors diverge. Core count: 6 on the E-2136 versus 12 on the E5-2650 v4. Threads: 12 versus 24. Base clock: 3.30 GHz on the E-2136 versus 2.20 GHz on the E5-2650 v4. Boost clock: 4.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz. TDP: 80 watts on the E-2136 versus 105 watts on the E5-2650 v4. Socket: Socket 1151 versus Socket 2011-3.

Memory bandwidth favors the E5-2650 v4 at 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s on the E-2136, thanks to its quad-channel bus. The E-2136 has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P630), while the E5-2650 v4 has none. PCIe lane count favors the E5-2650 v4 at 40 lanes versus 16 lanes on the E-2136. L3 cache is 12 MB on the E-2136 versus 30 MB on the E5-2650 v4. Transistor count and die size are only listed for the E5-2650 v4 (3,400 million transistors, 246 mm²), while the E-2136 has a 154 mm² die with no transistor figure in the data.

Release dates differ by over two years: the E-2136 launched in July 2018, the E5-2650 v4 in March 2016. The launch MSRP for the E-2136 was $289. The launch MSRP for the E5-2650 v4 was $1166. Both are end-of-life products. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SR3WW for the E-2136 and SR2N3 for the E5-2650 v4.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2136 boosts to 4.50 GHz, compared to 2.90 GHz on the Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4. This 1.6 GHz advantage is the primary reason the E-2136 wins all six Cinebench benchmarks despite having half the cores.

Q: Does the E5-2650 v4 ever win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The E5-2650 v4 loses all six head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 0.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 1.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core. Its advantages lie in specifications not directly tested here: 12 cores versus 6, 24 threads versus 12, and 30 MB L3 cache versus 12 MB.

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

A: The E5-2650 v4 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the E-2136 supports dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s. The E5-2650 v4 also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, compared to 16 lanes on the E-2136.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E-2136 includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics P630. The Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for enterprise Broadwell-EP parts that assume a discrete GPU will be present.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each processor?

A: The E-2136 has an 80-watt TDP, while the E5-2650 v4 has a 105-watt TDP. The E-2136 achieves better benchmark results with lower power draw, reflecting its newer architecture and higher clock efficiency.

Q: How do these processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The E-2136 has an average benchmark score of 3193, while the E5-2650 v4 has 3154. Both rank at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs. The E-2136's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-9700E (3197, -0.1%) and Intel Core i3-13100T (3198, -0.2%), while the E5-2650 v4's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U (3159, -0.2%) and AMD Ryzen 3 5300GE (3160, -0.2%).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Xeon E-2136. It wins every benchmark in this comparison, posts a higher average score (3193 versus 3154), and does so with a lower TDP (80 watts versus 105 watts). For anyone choosing between these two strictly on Cinebench performance, the E-2136 is the correct pick. Its 1.2-1.3% multi-core advantages and 0.6-1.2% single-core advantages are consistent across all tested workloads.

However, the E5-2650 v4 should not be dismissed. It offers double the cores and threads, 2.5 times the L3 cache, and 1.6 times the memory bandwidth. Workloads that scale beyond six cores, particularly memory-intensive server applications, large virtual machine hosts, or rendering tasks that use more than 12 threads, will likely favor the E5-2650 v4 despite its benchmark losses. The 40 PCIe lanes versus 16 also make it the better choice for systems with multiple GPUs or NVMe devices.

The launch MSRP difference is notable: $289 for the E-2136 versus $1166 for the E5-2650 v4. But both are end-of-life products, so current market pricing is not reflected in the data. The practical recommendation depends on workload: choose the E-2136 for single-threaded responsiveness, lower power draw, and integrated graphics; choose the E5-2650 v4 for core-heavy, memory-bandwidth-hungry server workloads where its specification advantages outweigh its benchmark deficits. The E-2136 is the better all-around performer in this dataset, but the E5-2650 v4 remains the more capable platform for scale-out scenarios.