CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2278G and Intel Xeon E-2336 are both server/workstation processors from Intel’s Xeon E family, but they represent different generations and design philosophies. The E-2278G is an 8-core, 16-thread part from the Coffee Lake generation, while the E-2336 is a 6-core, 12-thread processor built on the newer Rocket Lake architecture. The benchmark data shows a surprisingly consistent outcome: across every one of the six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the E-2336 wins, despite having two fewer cores and four fewer threads. This analysis breaks down exactly where each processor excels, the architectural reasons behind those results, and which workloads favor which chip.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E-2336 wins all six Cinebench comparisons. In the multi-core tests, the E-2336 scores 1388 in Cinebench R15, 5786 in R20, and 13777 in R23, while the E-2278G trails with 1360, 5670, and 13502 respectively. That works out to a 2% delta in favor of the E-2336 in every multi-core test. The single-core results tell the same story. The E-2336 posts 195 in R15, 816 in R20, and 1945 in R23, compared to 192, 800, and 1906 for the E-2278G. The single-core deltas are 1.5% in R15 and 2% in both R20 and R23.

The consistency of these margins is notable. A 2% advantage across all three multi-core tests suggests the E-2336’s architectural efficiency fully counteracts its core-count deficit. The E-2278G has 8 cores versus 6, but the E-2336 still comes out ahead. The single-core lead is similar in magnitude, which points to a fundamental per-thread performance advantage for the Rocket Lake design. Looking at the broader benchmark context, the two processors land in the same percentile tier. The E-2278G sits at the 57th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 4052, while the E-2336 also sits at the 57th percentile with an average score of 3985. The difference in average scores is just 1.7%, with the E-2278G holding a slim 67-point edge.

That average-score gap is interesting because it does not show up in the Cinebench suite. The E-2278G’s average is buoyed by its Geekbench results, where it scores 7354 multi-core and 1633 single-core. The E-2336 has no Geekbench scores in the data, so a direct comparison on that workload is not possible. The nearest rival data provides additional context. The E-2278G’s closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1900X, which averages 4073, a 0.5% difference. The E-2336’s closest rival is the Intel Xeon D-2733NT, which matches its 3985 average exactly.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two chips is stark. The E-2278G is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS variant, using a 14 nm process node from Intel. Its die size is 180 mm². The E-2336 uses the Rocket Lake architecture, specifically Rocket Lake-E, also on a 14 nm process, but its die is significantly larger at 276 mm². That 96 mm² die-size increase is a strong indicator of the internal redesigns in Rocket Lake, which delivers higher instructions per clock despite the same node.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The E-2278G provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 16 MB L3 cache. The E-2336 offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 is smaller at 12 MB. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the E-2336 are likely contributors to its single-core advantage, as more data can reside closer to the execution units. The E-2278G compensates with a larger L3 pool, but that does not translate into a multi-core win.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4, and both run dual-channel memory buses, but the E-2278G has a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the E-2336 reaches 51.2 GB/s. That is a 20% bandwidth advantage for the E-2336, which matters in memory-intensive workloads. PCIe connectivity also differs. The E-2278G offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the E-2336 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The newer standard doubles the per-lane bandwidth, giving the E-2336 a clear expansion and I/O advantage.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The E-2278G has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The E-2336 runs a lower base of 2.90 GHz but boosts to 4.80 GHz. The E-2278G has the higher peak clock, yet the E-2336 wins every single-core test. That points to the Rocket Lake architecture delivering more work per cycle, overcoming the 200 MHz boost-clock deficit. Power envelopes differ as well. The E-2278G has a 95 W TDP, while the E-2336 is rated at 65 W, a 30 W reduction that makes the E-2336 more power-efficient per unit of performance.

The integrated graphics situation is a major split. The E-2278G includes HD Graphics P630, while the E-2336 has no integrated graphics at all. The E-2278G’s socket is Intel Socket 1151, while the E-2336 uses Intel Socket 1200, meaning they are not platform-compatible. The E-2278G is also end-of-life in production status, whereas the E-2336 is listed as active. Release dates reinforce this: the E-2278G launched on May 28, 2019, while the E-2336 arrived on September 7, 2021.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the E-2336 wins all six Cinebench benchmarks, its territory is clearly rendering and multi-threaded compute. The data shows a 2% lead in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, which is a small but consistent margin. For workloads that rely heavily on single-threaded responsiveness, the E-2336 also takes the crown, with a 1.5% to 2% edge across the R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests. This makes the E-2336 the stronger choice for mixed workloads that include both interactive single-threaded tasks and batch rendering jobs.

The E-2278G does have one measurable win: its Geekbench multi-core score of 7354 and single-core score of 1633. Since the E-2336 lacks Geekbench results in the data, the E-2278G is the only one of the two with a demonstrated capability on that test. That suggests the E-2278G may be more competitive in Geekbench-style workloads, which tend to stress memory latency and integer performance differently than Cinebench. The E-2278G also has a higher average benchmark score of 4052 versus 3985, a 1.7% advantage that stems from its Geekbench results.

For systems that need an integrated GPU, the E-2278G is the only option, as it carries HD Graphics P630 while the E-2336 has none. The E-2278G also has more cores and threads, 8/16 versus 6/12, which could matter in niche scenarios where core count is a hard requirement even if the per-core performance is slightly lower. On the connectivity front, the E-2336 wins decisively with PCIe Gen 4 and 20 lanes versus PCIe Gen 3 and 16 lanes. Memory bandwidth also favors the E-2336 at 51.2 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. The E-2336’s 65 W TDP versus 95 W makes it the better fit for dense server chassis where power and cooling are constrained.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel Xeon E-2336 is the faster processor in every measured Cinebench workload. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from 1.5% to 2%. The E-2336 achieves this with two fewer cores and four fewer threads, which means its per-core performance is substantially higher. The architectural improvements in Rocket Lake, including larger per-core caches and higher memory bandwidth, fully compensate for the core-count deficit.

For anyone building a system primarily for Cinebench-style rendering, multi-threaded compute, or single-threaded responsiveness, the E-2336 is the better choice. Its 2% multi-core lead and 2% single-core lead are consistent across all tested versions of Cinebench. The E-2336 also offers newer PCIe Gen 4 connectivity, 20 lanes versus 16, and a lower 65 W TDP. These factors make it a more modern and efficient platform.

The E-2278G is the pick only in specific scenarios. It has an integrated GPU, which the E-2336 lacks entirely. It also has more cores and threads, which could be relevant for workloads that scale with thread count but are not represented in the Cinebench suite. Its Geekbench scores are the only data points where it demonstrates capability that the E-2336 does not match, but without a direct comparison, that advantage is unverified. The E-2278G also has a higher boost clock at 5.00 GHz versus 4.80 GHz, though this does not translate into a win in any Cinebench test.

The verdict from the data is straightforward. The E-2336 is the superior processor for general server and workstation compute, offering better performance in all measured Cinebench workloads, a newer PCIe standard, higher memory bandwidth, and lower power consumption. The E-2278G remains relevant only for systems that require integrated graphics or need the extra two cores for thread-count-sensitive applications. For everything else, the E-2336 is the one to choose.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2336 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. It takes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core runs, with the E-2278G winning zero of the six comparisons.

Q: How much faster is the E-2336 in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The E-2336 leads by 2% in all three multi-core tests. It scores 1388 versus 1360 in R15, 5786 versus 5670 in R20, and 13777 versus 13502 in R23.

Q: Does the E-2278G have any advantages in the benchmark data?

A: Yes. The E-2278G has Geekbench scores of 7354 multi-core and 1633 single-core, while the E-2336 has no Geekbench results. The E-2278G also has a higher average benchmark score of 4052 versus 3985 for the E-2336.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The E-2278G has 8 cores and 16 threads. The E-2336 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the E-2336 wins all Cinebench multi-core tests.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The E-2336 has a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the E-2278G is rated at 42.7 GB/s. Both support DDR4 and use a dual-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the E-2278G includes integrated graphics, specifically HD Graphics P630. The E-2336 has no integrated graphics of any kind, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.