Intel Xeon E-2286M vs Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 across every Cinebench test in the database. The margins are consistent, hovering between 6.5% and 6.6% in all six comparisons. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2669 v3 scores 1379 against 1295 for the E-2286M, a 6.5% lead. Single-core in the same test shows 194 versus 182, a 6.6% advantage. The pattern repeats in R20: 5749 versus 5396 multi-core, and 811 versus 761 single-core, both around 6.5% and 6.6% respectively. In R23, the E5-2669 v3 posts 13690 multi-core and 1932 single-core, while the E-2286M manages 12848 and 1813, again a 6.6% gap.

These are not small margins in the context of workstation workloads. A 6.6% single-core advantage can translate into noticeably snappier response in lightly threaded applications, and the multi-core lead of 6.5% compounds over long render or compilation jobs. The E5-2669 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests, while the E-2286M records zero wins in this dataset. For any buyer comparing these two strictly on benchmark output, the older Haswell part is the faster chip in every measured scenario.

The average benchmark scores from the database context reinforce this. The E5-2669 v3 has an average benchmark score of 3959, placing it at the 57th percentile of all CPUs. The E-2286M averages 3822, sitting at the 56th percentile. The nearest rivals for the E5-2669 v3 include the AMD Ryzen 3 7330U at 3958, a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i7-6900K at 3970, a -0.3% delta. The E-2286M sits near the AMD Ryzen 9 4900H at 3820, a 0% delta, and the Intel Core i7-8086K at 3800, a 0.6% delta. These rival snapshots show both Xeons are competitive within their respective peer groups, but the E5-2669 v3 holds the higher overall position.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, using a 22 nm process node. It packs 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.10 GHz. The die is 356 mm² and contains 2,600 million transistors. Cache is substantial: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 30 MB of shared L3. Memory support includes both DDR3 and DDR4 across a quad-channel bus, delivering 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 interface and carries the part number SR1XU. The production status is end-of-life, and there is no integrated graphics.

The Intel Xeon E-2286M is a Coffee Lake part, specifically Coffee Lake-H, built on a 14 nm process. It has 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a much higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz. The die is 180 mm², and transistor count is not recorded in the database. Cache is smaller: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 16 MB of shared L3. Memory support is limited to DDR4 on a dual-channel bus, yielding 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. It uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket and includes integrated UHD Graphics P630, which the E5-2669 v3 lacks. It also supports ECC memory, as does the E5-2669 v3. The E-2286M belongs to the Xeon E-2200 series, was released on 2019-05-28, and has a launch MSRP of $623. Its part number is SRFCZ.

The core and thread disparity is the most obvious split: 12 cores and 24 threads versus 8 cores and 16 threads. The E5-2669 v3 also offers more than double the L3 cache, 30 MB versus 16 MB, and far greater memory bandwidth at 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. The E-2286M counters with a dramatically higher boost clock, 5.00 GHz versus 3.10 GHz, and a much lower TDP of 45 watts versus 120 watts. The process node difference, 22 nm versus 14 nm, explains some of the efficiency gap, though the E5-2669 v3 is a server-oriented part designed for socketed platforms, while the E-2286M is a mobile-class BGA chip.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with margins between 6.5% and 6.6% across both single-core and multi-core workloads. Its higher average benchmark score of 3959 versus 3822, and its 57th percentile ranking versus the 56th percentile, confirm the pattern. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, this is the clear choice.

However, the E-2286M has its own strengths in the database. It operates at a 45 watt TDP compared to 120 watts, which matters in thermally constrained or power-sensitive systems. Its boost clock reaches 5.00 GHz, far above the 3.10 GHz of the E5-2669 v3, and it includes integrated graphics, which the older part does not. The E-2286M also uses a BGA 1440 socket, indicating a soldered, compact platform, while the E5-2669 v3 requires a Socket 2011-3 motherboard with a larger footprint.

The verdict depends on the intended use. If the goal is maximum multi-threaded throughput, render performance, or heavy parallel workloads, the E5-2669 v3 wins outright. If the goal is a low-power, high-boost chip with integrated graphics for a compact workstation, the E-2286M is the more practical fit, despite its benchmark deficit. Neither chip is current production, as both are end-of-life, but the E-2286M is the newer release with a recorded launch date and MSRP.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specification fields. The E5-2669 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the E-2286M has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are close, 2.30 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, but boost clocks diverge sharply: 3.10 GHz for the E5-2669 v3 and 5.00 GHz for the E-2286M. TDP is 120 watts versus 45 watts. Sockets differ: Intel Socket 2011-3 for the E5-2669 v3, Intel BGA 1440 for the E-2286M. Architecture is Haswell-EP versus Coffee Lake-H, with process nodes of 22 nm and 14 nm respectively. Die size is 356 mm² versus 180 mm², and transistor count is 2,600 million for the E5-2669 v3, with no recorded figure for the E-2286M.

Cache configurations differ in L3 only: 30 MB shared for the E5-2669 v3, 16 MB shared for the E-2286M. L1 and L2 are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core. Memory support is broader on the E5-2669 v3, accepting both DDR3 and DDR4, while the E-2286M supports only DDR4. Memory bus is quad-channel versus dual-channel, and memory bandwidth is 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s. PCIe lanes are 40 versus 16, both Gen 3. Integrated graphics are absent on the E5-2669 v3 and present as UHD Graphics P630 on the E-2286M. The E-2286M has a recorded release date of 2019-05-28 and a launch MSRP of $623; the E5-2669 v3 has no recorded release date or MSRP in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 wins every multi-core Cinebench test. In R15 it scores 1379 versus 1295, in R20 it scores 5749 versus 5396, and in R23 it scores 13690 versus 12848, a 6.5% to 6.6% lead in each case.

Q: Does the E-2286M win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The database records zero wins for the E-2286M. The E5-2669 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests, including single-core and multi-core versions of Cinebench R15, R20, and R23.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The E5-2669 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the E-2286M has 8 cores and 16 threads. The E5-2669 v3 also has 30 MB of shared L3 cache versus 16 MB.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The E5-2669 v3 is rated at 120 watts, while the E-2286M is rated at 45 watts. The E-2286M is significantly more power-efficient on paper.

Q: Does the E-2286M have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes UHD Graphics P630. The E5-2669 v3 has no integrated graphics in the database.

Q: What memory configurations do they support?

A: The E5-2669 v3 supports DDR3 and DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The E-2286M supports only DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 wins in every benchmark category recorded, but the nature of its victories matters. In multi-core tests, the 12-core, 24-thread configuration with 30 MB of L3 cache and quad-channel memory gives it a substantial throughput advantage. The 6.5% to 6.6% margins in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests are consistent, suggesting a structural advantage from the extra cores and cache rather than a workload-specific quirk. For rendering, video encoding, simulation, or any parallel compute task, the data supports choosing the E5-2669 v3.

Surprisingly, the E5-2669 v3 also wins single-core tests, despite the E-2286M's much higher 5.00 GHz boost clock. The single-core margins are 6.6% in R15, R20, and R23. This indicates the older Haswell architecture delivers better per-thread performance in these specific workloads, or that the E-2286M's boost behavior does not translate into Cinebench gains. Either way, the E5-2669 v3 is the pick for both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench performance.

The Intel Xeon E-2286M wins in areas outside raw benchmark scores. Its 45 watt TDP makes it suitable for compact, thermally limited systems where the 120 watt E5-2669 v3 would be impractical. Its integrated UHD Graphics P630 removes the need for a discrete GPU in basic display output scenarios. The 5.00 GHz boost clock, while not reflected in the Cinebench wins, may benefit other workloads not covered in this dataset. The BGA 1440 socket indicates a soldered, mobile-oriented platform, which could be an advantage in space-constrained designs. For a low-power workstation with ECC memory support and integrated graphics, the E-2286M is the more sensible option, even though it trails in every measured benchmark.