CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2314 and the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 are separated by seven years of architecture, yet the benchmark data shows they deliver nearly identical performance in the Cinebench suite. The E-2314 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 0.0% to 0.3%. The average benchmark score for the E-2314 is 1911, while the E5-2620 v3 sits at 1907, a gap of just 0.2% that places both processors in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. The E5-2620 v3 offers more cores and threads, but the E-2314's newer Rocket Lake architecture compensates with higher clock speeds, making this a contest between core count and per-core efficiency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The E-2314 wins every single benchmark in the comparison, but the results tell a story of near-parity rather than dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E-2314 scores 666 against the E5-2620 v3's 664, a 0.3% lead. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison, which is telling: the E5-2620 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, yet it cannot overcome the E-2314's 4 cores and 4 threads in a heavily multi-threaded workload.

Single-core results are effectively a tie. In Cinebench R15 single-core, both CPUs score 93, and in Cinebench R20 single-core, both score 391. The E-2314 pulls ahead by 0.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 933 versus 931. The pattern is consistent: the E-2314's 4.50 GHz boost clock versus the E5-2620 v3's 3.20 GHz boost clock yields a marginal edge, but the older chip's 12 threads keep it competitive.

Multi-core results in the newer Cinebench versions show the same story. In R20 multi-core, the E-2314 scores 2775 against 2769, a 0.2% lead. In R23 multi-core, the scores are 6609 and 6595, again a 0.2% difference. The data suggests that the E5-2620 v3's thread advantage is entirely neutralized by the E-2314's architectural improvements and higher clock speeds. The E-2314 wins 6 out of 6 benchmarks, but the E5-2620 v3's performance is close enough that real-world differences would be imperceptible in most workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2314 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the E-2314's lower core count hurt its multi-core performance?

A: No. The E-2314 wins all three multi-core benchmarks (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23) by margins of 0.2% to 0.3%, despite having fewer cores and threads.

Q: What are the boost clock speeds of each processor?

A: The E-2314 has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the E5-2620 v3 has a boost clock of 3.20 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The E5-2620 v3 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E-2314 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The E-2314 is marked as "Active" in production status, while the E5-2620 v3 is marked as "End-of-life."

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The E-2314 has an average benchmark score of 1911, and the E5-2620 v3 has an average score of 1907, a difference of 0.2%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct eras of Intel design. The E-2314 is built on Rocket Lake-E architecture, using a 14 nm process node, while the E5-2620 v3 uses Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm node. The E-2314 has a die size of 276 mm², smaller than the E5-2620 v3's 356 mm² die, and the older chip integrates 2,600 million transistors, a figure not listed for the newer part.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The E-2314 allocates 80 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The E5-2620 v3 provides 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but compensates with a larger 15 MB shared L3 cache. The older chip's cache design benefits from its higher core count, but the newer chip's per-core cache allocation is more generous.

The E-2314 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes, while the E5-2620 v3 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes. Both support DDR4 memory and ECC. The E-2314 uses dual-channel memory, whereas the E5-2620 v3 uses quad-channel memory, giving the older chip a higher theoretical memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s compared to 51.2 GB/s. Neither processor includes integrated graphics, and both are locked (multiplier not unlocked).

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core and thread count: the E5-2620 v3 offers 6 cores and 12 threads versus the E-2314's 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ, with the E-2314 running at 2.80 GHz and the E5-2620 v3 at 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks are more divergent: 4.50 GHz for the E-2314 versus 3.20 GHz for the E5-2620 v3.

Thermal design power favors the newer chip. The E-2314 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the E5-2620 v3 draws 85 watts. Sockets are incompatible: the E-2314 uses Intel Socket 1200, and the E5-2620 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Process nodes differ (14 nm vs 22 nm), as do die sizes (276 mm² vs 356 mm²). Memory channels differ (dual vs quad), and memory bandwidth is higher on the older chip (59.7 GB/s vs 51.2 GB/s). PCIe support differs by generation and lane count: Gen 4 with 20 lanes on the E-2314, Gen 3 with 40 lanes on the E5-2620 v3.

Release dates are seven years apart: the E-2314 launched on September 7, 2021, and the E5-2620 v3 launched on September 7, 2014. The launch MSRP for the E-2314 is $182, while the E5-2620 v3 launched at $417. Production status also differs, with the E-2314 listed as Active and the E5-2620 v3 as End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The E-2314 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so its advantages are clear. It leads in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core, by margins of 0.0% to 0.3%. The newer chip achieves this with half the threads and a lower TDP, making it the more efficient performer. Its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz gives it an edge in single-threaded workloads, and its 14 nm process node and newer architecture allow it to match a 6-core, 12-thread processor in multi-threaded tasks.

The E5-2620 v3's strengths lie in its specifications rather than its benchmark scores. It offers more cores and threads (6/12 versus 4/4), which could benefit workloads not represented in the Cinebench suite. Its larger 15 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth provide a memory subsystem advantage that may matter in memory-intensive server applications. The chip also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, double the E-2314's 20 Gen 4 lanes, which could support more expansion devices.

The E-2314's win count of 6 versus 0 is decisive in the measured benchmarks, but the near-tied average scores (1911 vs 1907) indicate that the E5-2620 v3 is not far behind in general-purpose computing. The E-2314's advantage in single-core performance is consistent, while the E5-2620 v3's extra threads and cache could make it competitive in parallel workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench tests.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E-2314 is the better processor for anyone relying on the Cinebench workloads shown in the data. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, offers a higher boost clock, consumes less power (65 watts versus 85 watts), and uses a newer socket and PCIe generation. Its Active production status means it is still available, and its launch MSRP of $182 is lower than the E5-2620 v3's $417, though pricing should not be the deciding factor given the performance parity.

The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 is a viable alternative only if the specific requirements involve its unique specifications. Its 12 threads, 15 MB L3 cache, quad-channel memory, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are not reflected in the benchmark scores, but they could be decisive in workloads that leverage these features. However, the data shows no performance advantage in the measured tests, and its End-of-life status makes it a less attractive long-term option.

For most users, the E-2314 is the clear choice. It matches or beats the older chip in every measured benchmark while offering a more modern platform. The E5-2620 v3's only arguments are its higher core count and memory bandwidth, which do not translate into wins in the Cinebench suite. If the workload is dominated by the tested benchmarks, the E-2314 wins outright. If the workload requires massive parallelism or memory throughput beyond what Cinebench measures, the E5-2620 v3's specifications warrant consideration, but the benchmark data provides no evidence that it would outperform the E-2314 in general use.