Intel Xeon E-2334 vs Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 and the Intel Xeon E-2334 represent two distinct approaches to server processing, separated by seven years of platform evolution. The database shows a clear, if narrow, pattern: the older Haswell-EP part edges out the newer Rocket Lake-E chip in every recorded Cinebench test, despite the E-2334's higher clock speeds and newer architecture. The average benchmark scores place the E5-2618L v3 at 3066, while the E-2334 records 2988, a difference that aligns with the head-to-head deltas of roughly 2.6 percent. Both CPUs sit at the 52nd percentile among all processors in the database, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier despite their generational gap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 scores 10601 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Xeon E-2334 scores 10333. The E5-2618L v3 wins by 2.6 percent.

Q: Does the newer Xeon E-2334 have a higher boost clock?

A: Yes, the Xeon E-2334 has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, compared to 3.40 GHz for the Xeon E5-2618L v3. The E-2334 also has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 2.30 GHz.

Q: How do the core counts compare between the two CPUs?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon E-2334 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The E5-2618L v3 offers double the core and thread count.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 is built on a 22 nm process, while the Xeon E-2334 uses a 14 nm process. The die size for the E5-2618L v3 is 356 mm², and for the E-2334 it is 276 mm².

Q: Which CPU supports more PCIe lanes?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon E-2334 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Is there a difference in memory bandwidth?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-2618L v3 supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Xeon E-2334 supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, reflecting a seven-year span in release dates. The Xeon E5-2618L v3, released in 2014, is based on the Haswell-EP microarchitecture built on a 22 nm process. It packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. In contrast, the Xeon E-2334, released in 2021, uses the Rocket Lake-E architecture on a 14 nm process, with a die size of 276 mm² and no transistor count recorded in the database.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The E5-2618L v3 offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E-2334 provides only 4 cores and 8 threads. This doubling of parallelism in the older chip is a key factor in its benchmark performance. Cache hierarchies also differ: the E5-2618L v3 has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a shared 20 MB L3. The E-2334 has larger per-core caches at 80 KB L1 and 512 KB L2, but a much smaller shared L3 at 8 MB. The newer part compensates for fewer cores with higher per-core cache capacity.

Memory and platform features further separate the two. The E5-2618L v3 uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 and supports quad-channel DDR4 with a peak bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The E-2334 uses Intel Socket 1200 and supports dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, but the older chip has a wider memory bus. PCIe capabilities also differ: the E5-2618L v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E-2334 provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The newer standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the older chip has twice the lane count.

Clock speeds favor the newer processor. The E-2334 runs at a 3.40 GHz base clock and boosts to 4.80 GHz. The E5-2618L v3 has a 2.30 GHz base clock and a 3.40 GHz boost. Despite the 1.4 GHz boost clock advantage for the E-2334, the benchmark results do not reflect a performance lead, indicating that core count and cache size play a more decisive role in these workloads. The TDP figures are close, with the E5-2618L v3 rated at 75 watts and the E-2334 at 65 watts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results show a consistent, narrow victory for the Xeon E5-2618L v3 across all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2618L v3 scores 1068 against 1041 for the E-2334, a delta of 2.6 percent. The single-core R15 test is similarly close: 150 versus 146, a 2.7 percent margin for the older chip. These small deltas suggest that the E5-2618L v3's 8-core configuration provides a modest but consistent edge even in single-threaded workloads.

The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20. The E5-2618L v3 scores 4452 in multi-core, while the E-2334 scores 4339, again a 2.6 percent difference. In single-core R20, the scores are 628 and 612, with a 2.6 percent delta. The consistency of these margins across different R20 iterations indicates a stable performance advantage rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Cinebench R23 results reinforce the trend. The E5-2618L v3 reaches 10601 in multi-core, and the E-2334 reaches 10333, a 2.6 percent gap. In single-core R23, the scores are 1496 and 1458, also a 2.6 percent difference. Across all six head-to-head tests, the E5-2618L v3 wins 6, and the E-2334 wins 0. The largest single margin is 2.7 percent in Cinebench R15 single-core, while the smallest is 2.6 percent in the remaining tests.

The average benchmark scores contextualize these results. The E5-2618L v3 has an average score of 3066, placing it even with the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U at a 0 percent delta and 0.1 percent ahead of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 7330U. The E-2334 has an average score of 2988, matching the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5675U at 0 percent and trailing the Intel Core i7-11375H by 1 percent. The 78-point average score gap between the two processors aligns with the head-to-head deltas, confirming that the E5-2618L v3 holds a slight but measurable lead in this benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every core specification. The most significant divergence is in core and thread counts: the E5-2618L v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E-2334 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds are reversed in favor of the newer chip, with the E-2334 offering a 3.40 GHz base and 4.80 GHz boost against the E5-2618L v3's 2.30 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. TDP is slightly lower for the E-2334 at 65 watts, compared to 75 watts for the E5-2618L v3.

Process technology and die size also differ. The E5-2618L v3 uses a 22 nm node with a 356 mm² die and 2,600 million transistors. The E-2334 uses a 14 nm node with a 276 mm² die and no recorded transistor count. Cache layouts are distinct: the E5-2618L v3 has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 20 MB shared L3. The E-2334 has 80 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core, plus 8 MB shared L3.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The E5-2618L v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the E-2334 supports dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The socket and platform differ entirely: Intel Socket 2011-3 for the E5-2618L v3, and Intel Socket 1200 for the E-2334. PCIe capabilities also diverge, with the E5-2618L v3 offering 40 lanes of PCIe Gen 3 versus 20 lanes of PCIe Gen 4 for the E-2334.

Release dates are seven years apart: September 2014 for the E5-2618L v3, and September 2021 for the E-2334. The part numbers are SR200 and SRKN6, respectively. Both lack integrated graphics and have locked multipliers. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation, and both are listed as Active in production status.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2618L v3 wins in every recorded benchmark, making it the stronger choice for multi-threaded Cinebench workloads. Its 8-core, 16-thread design provides a 2.6 percent advantage in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. The data indicates that the larger shared L3 cache of 20 MB, combined with quad-channel memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, supports sustained throughput that the E-2334 cannot match. The older chip also holds a slight edge in single-core tests, with 2.6 to 2.7 percent margins, suggesting that its per-core efficiency is competitive despite the lower boost clock.

The E-2334, while it does not win any head-to-head tests, offers structural advantages that are not reflected in the Cinebench scores. Its 4.80 GHz boost clock is the highest in this comparison, and its 14 nm process node is newer than the 22 nm node of the E5-2618L v3. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches, at 80 KB and 512 KB respectively, could benefit latency-sensitive workloads that are not represented in the benchmark suite. The E-2334 also supports PCIe Gen 4, which provides double the per-lane bandwidth of the Gen 3 interface on the E5-2618L v3, a factor relevant for storage and accelerator connectivity.

For use cases, the E5-2618L v3 is better suited to parallel compute tasks such as rendering, virtualization, or database workloads where core count and memory bandwidth are critical. Its 40 PCIe lanes also support more expansion devices. The E-2334, with its lower TDP of 65 watts and higher clock speeds, may fit single-threaded or lightly threaded server applications where per-core performance and power efficiency are priorities. The benchmark data, however, shows that in Cinebench, the E5-2618L v3 consistently outperforms the E-2334, making it the default recommendation for workloads that resemble these tests. The E-2334's advantages are architectural and platform-level, not demonstrated in the recorded scores.