CPU Comparison

# Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 vs Intel Xeon E-2286G

The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 and Intel Xeon E-2286G represent two distinct approaches to server/workstation processing, separated by nearly five years of development. The E5-1681 v3 leans on a 10-core, 20-thread Haswell design with a 135W TDP, while the E-2286G counters with a 6-core, 12-thread Coffee Lake architecture that boosts much higher but draws only 95W. Benchmark data shows the older, wider chip sweeping all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, yet the newer part brings integrated graphics and a much newer platform. The question becomes whether raw multi-threaded throughput or platform modernity matters more for a given workload.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 wins with a score of 12597, beating the E-2286G's 11889 by 6%. This pattern repeats across all multi-core tests, with the E5-1681 v3 leading by 5.9% in both Cinebench R15 (1269 vs 1198) and R20 (5290 vs 4993).

Q: Is the E-2286G competitive in single-core tests?

A: No, the data shows the E5-1681 v3 wins every single-core benchmark as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the E5-1681 v3 scores 1778 versus the E-2286G's 1678, a 6% margin. The E-2286G's higher boost clock of 4.90 GHz does not translate into a win against the older chip's 3.50 GHz boost.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The E5-1681 v3 has an average benchmark score of 3643, while the E-2286G averages 3610. Both sit at the 55th percentile among all CPUs, and their nearest rivals cluster tightly, the E5-1681 v3's closest competitor is the Core i9-10885H at 3651 (0.2% higher), while the E-2286G's nearest is the Xeon E5-2678 v3 at 3608 (0.1% lower).

Q: Does the E-2286G support integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the E-2286G includes HD Graphics P630, whereas the E5-1681 v3 has no integrated graphics. This is a notable platform advantage for the newer chip, especially for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU.

Q: What are the memory channel differences?

A: The E5-1681 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, while the E-2286G is limited to dual-channel with 42.7 GB/s. The older chip offers roughly 60% more memory bandwidth in theory, which can matter for memory-intensive server workloads.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The E5-1681 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), compared to 16 lanes on the E-2286G. This makes the older chip significantly more capable for multi-GPU or high-density storage configurations.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras with fundamentally different designs. The E5-1681 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process node, packing 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. The E-2286G, by contrast, is built on Coffee Lake-S WS at 14 nm with a much smaller 154 mm² die. Despite the newer process, the E-2286G does not list transistor counts, but the die size difference alone suggests a far less complex chip.

Core configurations diverge sharply. The E5-1681 v3 features 10 cores and 20 threads, while the E-2286G offers only 6 cores and 12 threads. This 40% core advantage explains the older chip's consistent multi-core wins. Cache hierarchies tell a similar story: the E5-1681 v3 has 25 MB of shared L3 cache versus 12 MB on the E-2286G. L1 and L2 caches are identical per core at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively, but total cache capacity favors the Haswell part heavily.

Clock speeds invert the expected relationship. The E-2286G has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and boosts to 4.90 GHz, dramatically higher than the E5-1681 v3's 2.90 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost. Yet this clock advantage fails to overcome the core and cache deficit in every benchmark recorded. Memory architecture also differs: the E5-1681 v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, while the E-2286G is limited to dual-channel at 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, but the older chip's wider memory bus is a substantial difference for server workloads.

Platform support diverges completely. The E5-1681 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E-2286G uses Socket 1151. The older chip offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16 on the newer part. Integrated graphics are exclusive to the E-2286G, which includes HD Graphics P630; the E5-1681 v3 has none. Both are locked multipliers, but the E-2286G is from the Xeon E-2200 series while the E5-1681 v3 belongs to the broader Haswell-EP generation.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the E5-1681 v3 beats the E-2286G in every single benchmark recorded, with margins ranging from 5.9% to 6.5%. This is a sweeping victory across both multi-core and single-core tests, despite the E-2286G's much higher clock speeds and newer architecture. The older chip's 10 cores, 25 MB of L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bus consistently overcome the newer part's clock advantage.

For workloads that prioritize raw computational throughput, the E5-1681 v3 is the obvious choice. Its 6% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (12597 vs 11889) and 6% lead in single-core (1778 vs 1678) suggest that core count and cache capacity matter more than clock speed in these tests. The quad-channel memory support adds another layer of advantage for memory-bound applications, while the 40 PCIe lanes make it far more suitable for expansion-heavy server builds.

The E-2286G's case rests on platform features rather than benchmark scores. Its integrated HD Graphics P630 means a system can run without a discrete GPU, simplifying basic server or workstation builds. The newer Coffee Lake architecture brings a more modern platform overall, and the 95W TDP is significantly lower than the E5-1681 v3's 135W. Its launch MSRP was $450, but the older chip has no listed MSRP. For users who need integrated graphics or lower power consumption, the E-2286G has a role, but on pure performance data, the E5-1681 v3 dominates.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every major specification category. The E5-1681 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads compared to 6 cores and 12 threads on the E-2286G. Clock speeds favor the newer chip: the E5-1681 v3 runs at 2.90 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, while the E-2286G runs at 4.00 GHz base and 4.90 GHz boost. Thermal design power is also lower on the E-2286G at 95W versus 135W for the E5-1681 v3.

Architecture and process nodes differ by generation. The E5-1681 v3 uses Haswell-EP on 22 nm with a 356 mm² die and 2,600 million transistors, while the E-2286G uses Coffee Lake-S WS on 14 nm with a 154 mm² die and no listed transistor count. Cache configurations differ in total L3 only: both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the E5-1681 v3 has 25 MB shared L3 versus 12 MB on the E-2286G.

Memory support shows the older chip's server pedigree. The E5-1681 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the E-2286G is dual-channel at 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. PCIe lanes also favor the E5-1681 v3 with 40 Gen 3 lanes versus 16 on the E-2286G. Integrated graphics are exclusive to the E-2286G with HD Graphics P630. Sockets are incompatible: Socket 2011-3 for the E5-1681 v3, Socket 1151 for the E-2286G. Both are locked multipliers and end-of-life products. Release dates differ by nearly five years, with the E5-1681 v3 launching in September 2014 and the E-2286G in May 2019.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent in favor of the E5-1681 v3. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-1681 v3 scores 1269 against the E-2286G's 1198, a 5.9% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a 6.5% margin with scores of 179 versus 168. This single-core result is notable because the E-2286G boosts to 4.90 GHz, yet the E5-1681 v3's 3.50 GHz boost still wins by a clear margin.

Cinebench R20 continues the pattern. Multi-core scores are 5290 for the E5-1681 v3 and 4993 for the E-2286G, again a 5.9% difference. Single-core R20 shows a 6% lead, with 746 versus 704. The E5-1681 v3 wins by 6% in both Cinebench R23 multi-core (12597 vs 11889) and single-core (1778 vs 1678). Across all six head-to-head tests, the E5-1681 v3 wins every one, with deltas between 5.9% and 6.5%.

The E-2286G does have additional Geekbench scores in its benchmark list, with a multi-core score of 6651 and single-core of 1598, but no comparable Geekbench data exists for the E5-1681 v3 in the fact pack, so these cannot be directly compared. The available Cinebench data tells a uniform story: the E5-1681 v3 outperforms the E-2286G by roughly 6% across the board, regardless of whether the test is single-core or multi-core.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-1681 v3 wins in every benchmark category recorded, but its advantages extend beyond raw scores. Its 10 cores and 20 threads provide a 40% core count advantage that should scale better in heavily parallel workloads like rendering, scientific computing, or virtualization. The 25 MB of L3 cache and quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth give it a clear edge in memory-hungry applications, while 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes support far more expansion options, multiple GPUs, NVMe storage, or high-speed networking cards.

The E-2286G wins in platform features that the benchmarks do not capture. Its integrated HD Graphics P630 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display or compute scenarios, which is a meaningful advantage for simple workstation builds or headless servers that occasionally need graphics output. The lower 95W TDP makes it easier to cool and power, and the Socket 1151 platform is more mainstream and potentially more affordable for system builders. Its higher base and boost clocks might also benefit lightly threaded workloads that do not scale with core count, though the benchmark data suggests otherwise.

The decision ultimately depends on workload priorities. For maximum computational throughput, memory bandwidth, and expansion capability, the E5-1681 v3 is the clear winner based on the data. For integrated graphics, lower power draw, and a newer platform, the E-2286G offers advantages that benchmarks do not measure. The 6% performance gap in every Cinebench test, however, shows that the older Haswell design still holds a meaningful edge in CPU-bound work.