CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 and Intel Xeon E-2244G represent two distinct eras of Intel’s server and workstation lineup, separated by roughly five years of architectural evolution. The E5-1650 v3 is a Haswell-EP part built for the high-core-count, high-bandwidth demands of dual-socket-capable platforms, while the E-2244G is a Coffee Lake-S WS chip aimed at entry-level single-socket servers. Benchmark data shows a consistent, narrow victory for the older E5-1650 v3 across all Cinebench tests, with delta percentages hovering between 8.3% and 8.7%. Despite having two fewer cores and a smaller cache, the E-2244G’s higher clocks and newer architecture keep it close, but not ahead, in every measured workload. The following analysis breaks down these results, architectural differences, and use-case implications strictly from the provided data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2545, while the Intel Xeon E-2244G scores 2527. This places the E5-1650 v3 0.7% ahead of the E-2244G, according to the nearestRivals deltaPct values.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the E5-1650 v3 scores 8800, and the E-2244G scores 8126. The E5-1650 v3 wins by a delta of 8.3%.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap different from the multi-core gap?

A: The data shows a similar margin in both. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the E5-1650 v3 scores 125 versus 115 for the E-2244G, an 8.7% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the scores are 521 and 481, again an 8.3% delta. The pattern holds across all listed Cinebench versions.

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

A: The E5-1650 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The E-2244G supports dual-channel DDR4, providing 42.7 GB/s. The E5-1650 v3’s memory subsystem offers significantly higher theoretical throughput.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The E5-1650 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), whereas the E-2244G provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). This makes the E5-1650 v3 better suited for configurations with multiple expansion cards or high-bandwidth storage.

Q: Does the E-2244G include integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the E-2244G includes HD Graphics P630. The E5-1650 v3 has no integrated graphics listed in the data.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, with deltas ranging from 8.3% to 8.7%. This is a clean sweep, meaning that in every CPU-bound render test listed, the older Haswell chip outperforms the newer Coffee Lake part. For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded performance in applications like Cinebench, the E5-1650 v3 is the clear choice, delivering 8800 versus 8126 in R23 multi-core.

However, the E-2244G is not without merit. It achieves this near-parity with two fewer cores and four fewer threads, relying on a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to the E5-1650 v3’s 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The E-2244G also has a significantly lower TDP of 71 watts versus 140 watts, making it more power-efficient on paper. For single-socket systems where power draw and thermal output are critical constraints, the E-2244G may be the more practical platform choice, even if it loses on raw benchmark scores.

The data suggests a trade-off: the E5-1650 v3 offers higher performance and more memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s) but demands a larger platform (Socket 2011-3 versus Socket 1151). The E-2244G offers a more modern architecture, integrated graphics, and a higher clock speed, but trails in every benchmark. The verdict hinges on whether the user needs the extra 8-9% performance or the lower power envelope and newer feature set.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The E5-1650 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture, fabricated on Intel’s 22 nm process node, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. In contrast, the E-2244G uses the Coffee Lake-S WS architecture, built on a 14 nm process, with a die size of 126 mm² and no transistor count listed in the data. This represents a significant shrink in manufacturing technology, which typically allows for higher clocks and better power efficiency per core.

The core configurations differ as well: the E5-1650 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the E-2244G has 4 cores and 8 threads. The E5-1650 v3’s L3 cache is 15 MB shared, whereas the E-2244G has 8 MB shared. Both have the same per-core L1 cache (64 KB) and L2 cache (256 KB). The memory controller also reflects the platform divide: the E5-1650 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4, while the E-2244G supports dual-channel DDR4. This results in a memory bandwidth difference of 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s.

The E-2244G includes integrated HD Graphics P630, a feature entirely absent from the E5-1650 v3. Additionally, the E5-1650 v3 has an unlocked multiplier, while the E-2244G does not, indicating that the former is intended for overclocking-capable workstation boards. The E5-1650 v3’s PCIe lane count is also higher at 40 lanes versus 16 lanes, reflecting its server/workstation heritage where expansion is a priority.

Specification Differences

The specifications that differ between the two processors are numerous and define their respective market positions. The E5-1650 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, compared to the E-2244G’s 4 cores and 8 threads. The base clock is higher on the E-2244G at 3.80 GHz versus 3.50 GHz, and the boost clock is substantially higher at 4.80 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. The TDP is dramatically different: 140 watts for the E5-1650 v3 versus 71 watts for the E-2244G.

The sockets are incompatible: the E5-1650 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E-2244G uses Intel Socket 1151. The process node differs (22 nm versus 14 nm), as does the die size (356 mm² versus 126 mm²) and the transistor count (2,600 million versus not listed). The L3 cache is 15 MB on the E5-1650 v3 and 8 MB on the E-2244G. Memory support is quad-channel on the former and dual-channel on the latter, with corresponding bandwidth figures of 68.3 GB/s and 42.7 GB/s. The PCIe lane counts are 40 versus 16. The E-2244G has integrated graphics (HD Graphics P630), while the E5-1650 v3 does not. The E5-1650 v3 has an unlocked multiplier; the E-2244G is locked. The release dates are 2014-09-07 for the E5-1650 v3 and 2019-05-28 for the E-2244G, and the E-2244G has a launch MSRP of $272, which the E5-1650 v3 lacks in the data.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-1650 v3 wins in every benchmark category listed in the head-to-head comparison. It leads by 8.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (887 versus 818) and by 8.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core (125 versus 115). In Cinebench R20, it leads by 8.3% in both multi-core (3696 versus 3412) and single-core (521 versus 481). In Cinebench R23, the multi-core lead is 8.3% (8800 versus 8126), and the single-core lead is also 8.3% (1242 versus 1147). The E5-1650 v3 also has a higher average benchmark score (2545 versus 2527) and a higher memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s). This makes it the definitive winner in compute-heavy workloads, particularly those that scale with cores and memory throughput.

The E-2244G wins in no benchmark tests listed. However, it has advantages in specification areas that may translate to real-world wins in specific scenarios. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.80 GHz and 4.80 GHz) suggest it could be more responsive in lightly-threaded tasks, though the benchmark data does not support this, as it loses in single-core tests. Its lower TDP of 71 watts makes it a more attractive option for compact or power-constrained servers, where the 140-watt TDP of the E5-1650 v3 would require more substantial cooling and power delivery. The E-2244G’s integrated graphics also provide a display output capability that the E5-1650 v3 lacks, which is useful for basic server management or entry-level workstations without a discrete GPU. The E-2244G’s newer 14 nm process and smaller die size (126 mm²) may also offer better power efficiency per unit of silicon, though the data does not provide direct power consumption measurements beyond TDP.

In summary, the E5-1650 v3 is the performance leader, winning all six benchmark comparisons. The E-2244G is the efficiency and platform-feature leader, with lower power draw, integrated graphics, and a more modern manufacturing process, but it sacrifices raw compute performance in every measured workload.