CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2144G and Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 are both end-of-life server/workstation processors from Intel, but they represent fundamentally different design philosophies. The E-2144G is a 4-core, 8-thread Coffee Lake part built on a 14 nm process, while the E5-2630 v3 is an 8-core, 16-thread Haswell-EP part on a 22 nm process. Benchmark data shows a consistent pattern: the E5-2630 v3 wins every single head-to-head test, with margins ranging from 8.7% to 8.9%. The E-2144G counters with a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, a boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, and integrated graphics that the E5-2630 v3 lacks entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2144G has 4 cores and 8 threads. This gives the E5-2630 v3 a 100% advantage in both core count and thread count.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The E5-2630 v3 is ahead in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 8668 versus 7910 for the E-2144G, a delta of -8.7% from the E-2144G's perspective. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the scores are 3640 versus 3322, also an -8.7% delta.

Q: Does the E-2144G win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows zero wins for the E-2144G and six wins for the E5-2630 v3. The E5-2630 v3 wins all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests in both single-core and multi-core variants.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The average benchmark score for the E5-2630 v3 is 2507, while the E-2144G scores 2514. The delta between them is 0.3%, with the E-2144G slightly higher. Both sit at the 49th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What are the memory channel and bandwidth specifications?

A: The E5-2630 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The E-2144G supports dual-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. This gives the E5-2630 v3 a 39.8% bandwidth advantage.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The E-2144G includes HD Graphics P630. The E5-2630 v3 has no integrated graphics, meaning a discrete GPU is mandatory for any display output.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural generations and market tiers. The E-2144G uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS variant, built on Intel's 14 nm process node. Its die size is 126 mm². The E5-2630 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, on a 22 nm process node, with a significantly larger die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the shared L3 cache differs: the E-2144G has 8 MB shared, while the E5-2630 v3 has 20 MB shared. That is a 2.5x difference in L3 capacity, which can matter for workloads with large working sets.

Memory support is another key differentiator. The E-2144G uses a dual-channel memory bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The E5-2630 v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. Both support DDR4 and both support ECC memory. PCIe lane allocation also differs: the E-2144G provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the E5-2630 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only).

The E-2144G features integrated HD Graphics P630, making it suitable for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU. The E5-2630 v3 has no integrated graphics. Both are locked processors with no unlocked multiplier. The E-2144G has a part number of SR3WM, while the E5-2630 v3 has SR206.

Clock speeds show a clear trade-off. The E-2144G runs at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosts to 4.50 GHz. The E5-2630 v3 runs at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and boosts to 3.20 GHz. The E-2144G also has a lower TDP of 71 watts compared to 85 watts for the E5-2630 v3, a 14-watt difference.

The Verdict

The data points to a decisive conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 is the stronger performer across the board. In all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, the E5-2630 v3 wins with deltas between -8.7% and -8.9% relative to the E-2144G. This includes both single-core and multi-core tests, meaning the E5-2630 v3's lower clock speeds do not overcome its architectural advantages in these workloads.

Who should choose which? The E5-2630 v3 is the pick for workloads that benefit from more cores, more threads, larger L3 cache, and higher memory bandwidth. Its 8-core/16-thread configuration and 20 MB L3 cache make it suitable for heavily threaded server tasks. The quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth is a significant advantage for memory-intensive applications.

The E-2144G, despite losing every benchmark, has its own niche. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.60 GHz and 4.50 GHz) and integrated HD Graphics P630 mean it can handle light graphics tasks without a discrete GPU. Its lower TDP of 71 watts also makes it more power-efficient. The E-2144G uses a smaller die (126 mm²) and a more modern 14 nm process, which may appeal to systems where space and power are constrained.

However, the benchmark results are unambiguous. The E5-2630 v3 leads in every measured test, from Cinebench R15 single-core (123 versus 112) to Cinebench R23 multi-core (8668 versus 7910). The E-2144G's only advantages are in specifications that do not translate to benchmark wins, such as integrated graphics and higher clock speeds.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count is 4 versus 8, and thread count is 8 versus 16. Base clock is 3.60 GHz for the E-2144G versus 2.40 GHz for the E5-2630 v3. Boost clock is 4.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP is 71 watts versus 85 watts.

Socket types are incompatible: the E-2144G uses Intel Socket 1151, while the E5-2630 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. This means they cannot be swapped into the same motherboard. Process node is 14 nm for the E-2144G versus 22 nm for the E5-2630 v3. Die size is 126 mm² versus 356 mm². The E5-2630 v3 has 2,600 million transistors; the E-2144G has no listed transistor count.

Cache sizes differ: L3 cache is 8 MB shared for the E-2144G versus 20 MB shared for the E5-2630 v3. L1 and L2 caches are identical per-core at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. Memory bus is dual-channel for the E-2144G versus quad-channel for the E5-2630 v3. Memory bandwidth is 42.7 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.

The E-2144G includes integrated HD Graphics P630, while the E5-2630 v3 has none. PCIe lanes are 16 for the E-2144G versus 40 for the E5-2630 v3. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory. The E-2144G was released on 2018-07-11, while the E5-2630 v3 was released on 2014-09-07, a gap of roughly four years.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a uniform picture: the E5-2630 v3 wins every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2630 v3 scores 873 against 797 for the E-2144G, a delta of -8.7%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 123 versus 112, a delta of -8.9%. These are the two largest deltas in the comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. Multi-core scores are 3640 for the E5-2630 v3 versus 3322 for the E-2144G, a -8.7% delta. Single-core scores are 513 versus 468, a -8.8% delta. The consistency across R15 and R20 suggests the performance gap is stable regardless of the specific rendering workload.

In Cinebench R23, the E5-2630 v3 continues its dominance. Multi-core scores are 8668 versus 7910, a -8.7% delta. Single-core scores are 1223 versus 1116, also a -8.7% delta. The E5-2630 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests, giving it a clean 6-0 record.

The E-2144G also has Geekbench scores that are not part of the head-to-head comparison: 4875 multi-core and 1508 single-core. The E5-2630 v3 has no Geekbench scores in the data. This means the E-2144G has additional benchmark data points, but they do not affect the head-to-head results.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-2630 v3 wins every benchmark where both processors are tested. This includes all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. The margins are consistent, ranging from -8.7% to -8.9% from the E-2144G's perspective. This suggests the E5-2630 v3 is the better choice for rendering, video encoding, and other CPU-intensive tasks that Cinebench measures.

The E-2144G wins in areas not covered by the benchmark suite. It has integrated HD Graphics P630, which is absent on the E5-2630 v3. This makes the E-2144G suitable for systems that need basic display output or light graphics acceleration without a discrete GPU. Its higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz may also provide better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks, though the single-core benchmarks do not show this advantage.

The E-2144G also has a lower TDP of 71 watts versus 85 watts, which can be a factor in power-constrained environments. Its smaller die size of 126 mm² versus 356 mm² and 14 nm process versus 22 nm indicate a more modern manufacturing approach. For workloads that do not scale with core count and do not require extensive memory bandwidth, the E-2144G's higher clocks and integrated graphics could make it a more practical option.

For memory-intensive applications, the E5-2630 v3 is clearly superior. Its quad-channel memory bus delivers 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to 42.7 GB/s for the dual-channel E-2144G. Combined with 20 MB of L3 cache versus 8 MB, the E5-2630 v3 is better positioned for database workloads, virtualization, and other tasks that benefit from large caches and high memory throughput.

The E5-2630 v3 also offers more PCIe lanes: 40 versus 16. This allows for more expansion cards, NVMe drives, or other PCIe devices, making it a better fit for dense server configurations. The E-2144G's 16 lanes are sufficient for basic configurations but limit expansion potential.