CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon E-2336
Xeon E5-2669 v3
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Xeon E-2336 vs Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3
The Verdict
The benchmark data delivers a remarkably lopsided verdict: the Intel Xeon E-2336 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons against the Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3, yet the margins are razor-thin. In multi-core workloads, the E-2336 leads by 0.6% to 0.7% across R15, R20, and R23, while single-core tests show the same narrow 0.5% to 0.7% advantage. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the E-2336 posts 3985 versus the E5-2669 v3’s 3959, a difference of roughly 0.7%. Both processors sit at the 57th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier despite their architectural separation.
The data does not support choosing the E5-2669 v3 on performance grounds alone. It wins zero benchmarks in this comparison. However, the E5-2669 v3 offers twice the core count (12 versus 6) and four times the thread count (24 versus 12), which suggests it may handle highly parallel workloads that do not appear in these Cinebench tests. The E-2336, meanwhile, is the active product with a launch MSRP of $284, while the E5-2669 v3 is end-of-life. For new deployments, the E-2336 is the rational pick; for existing Socket 2011-3 platforms, the E5-2669 v3 remains a viable option, but the data shows no scenario where it outperforms the newer chip in these benchmarks.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E-2336 uses the Rocket Lake-E architecture built on Intel’s 14 nm process with a die size of 276 mm². The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 uses the older Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. The E-2336’s smaller die on a more advanced node explains its lower 65 W TDP compared to the E5-2669 v3’s 120 W TDP, despite the latter having more cores.
Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The E-2336 provides 80 KB of L1 per core, 512 KB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The E5-2669 v3 offers 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a much larger 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The E5-2669 v3’s larger L3 pool likely compensates for its slower clock speeds and older core design, helping it stay competitive in the benchmark results.
Memory support also diverges. The E-2336 supports DDR4 with dual-channel memory and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The E5-2669 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with quad-channel memory and 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, a 33% bandwidth advantage. Both processors support ECC memory, which is expected for server/workstation parts. PCIe connectivity favors the E5-2669 v3 in lane count (40 Gen 3 lanes versus 20 Gen 4 lanes), though the E-2336’s Gen 4 standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth. The sockets are incompatible: the E-2336 uses Intel Socket 1200, while the E5-2669 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3.
Where Each One Wins
The head-to-head results show the E-2336 winning every benchmark, but the margins are so small that the practical implications deserve scrutiny. In multi-core tests, Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the E-2336’s advantage ranges from 0.6% to 0.7%. This means the E-2336 edges out the E5-2669 v3 in heavily threaded rendering workloads, but the difference is within run-to-run variance for most real-world applications. The E-2336’s higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 3.10 GHz) and newer architecture likely drive these wins, despite having half the cores.
Single-core results show a similar pattern: the E-2336 leads by 0.5% to 0.7% across R15, R20, and R23. This makes sense given the clock speed advantage, the E-2336’s base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz dwarf the E5-2669 v3’s 2.30 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. For lightly threaded tasks like legacy software, spreadsheet work, or single-threaded scripting, the E-2336 is the clear choice, though again the margin is small.
The data does not show any benchmark category where the E5-2669 v3 wins. However, the E5-2669 v3’s specifications suggest it would excel in workloads not captured here: its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with 30 MB of L3 cache and quad-channel memory, point toward highly parallel, memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks like large-scale virtualization, database workloads, or scientific computing. The E-2336’s 6 cores and 12 threads, with 12 MB of L3 and dual-channel memory, are more suited to latency-sensitive, moderately threaded workloads. The benchmark data simply does not include tests that would expose the E5-2669 v3’s potential advantages in these areas.
FAQ
Q: Which processor wins all the Cinebench benchmarks in this comparison?
A: The Intel Xeon E-2336 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core), with deltas ranging from 0.5% to 0.7%.
Q: Does the E5-2669 v3’s higher core count translate to a multi-core benchmark win?
A: No. Despite having 12 cores and 24 threads versus the E-2336’s 6 cores and 12 threads, the E5-2669 v3 loses the multi-core R15, R20, and R23 tests by 0.6% to 0.7%.
Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two CPUs?
A: The E-2336 has an average benchmark score of 3985, while the E5-2669 v3 scores 3959, a difference of 0.7% in favor of the E-2336.
Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard socket?
A: No. The E-2336 uses Intel Socket 1200, while the E5-2669 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. They are not interchangeable.
Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?
A: The E5-2669 v3 supports quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the E-2336 supports dual-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.
Q: What is the production status of each processor?
A: The E-2336 is marked as Active, with a launch MSRP of $284. The E5-2669 v3 is end-of-life with no launch MSRP listed.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The most striking aspect of this comparison is how close the results are across every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E-2336 scores 1388 against the E5-2669 v3’s 1379, a 0.7% margin. The single-core R15 test shows 195 versus 194, a 0.5% edge for the E-2336. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 5786 for the E-2336 and 5749 for the E5-2669 v3, a 0.6% difference. The R20 single-core test shows 816 versus 811, again 0.6% in favor of the E-2336.
Cinebench R23 continues the pattern. The E-2336 posts 13777 in multi-core versus 13690 for the E5-2669 v3, a 0.6% advantage. In single-core R23, the E-2336 scores 1945 against 1932, a 0.7% lead. Across all six tests, the E-2336’s largest margin is 0.7% (in R15 multi-core and R23 single-core), while its smallest is 0.5% (in R15 single-core). No test shows the E5-2669 v3 ahead.
These margins are remarkably consistent, which suggests the E-2336’s clock speed advantage (4.80 GHz boost versus 3.10 GHz) and newer architecture provide a small but repeatable edge. The E5-2669 v3’s extra six cores and 18 MB of additional L3 cache do not overcome this deficit in Cinebench’s workloads, which appear to scale more with single-core efficiency than raw core count at this thread level. The data implies that for Cinebench-class rendering tasks, the architectural improvements in Rocket Lake outweigh the Haswell design’s core and cache advantages.
Specification Differences
The specification table reveals a generation gap between these two Xeon processors. The E-2336 comes from the Xeon E-2300 series with a Rocket Lake-E architecture, while the E5-2669 v3 belongs to the Xeon E5 family with Haswell-EP architecture. Their process nodes differ: 14 nm for the E-2336 versus 22 nm for the E5-2669 v3.
Core and thread counts are the most significant divergence. The E-2336 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the E5-2669 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, exactly double each. Clock speeds favor the E-2336: a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz, compared to the E5-2669 v3’s 2.30 GHz base and 3.10 GHz boost. The TDP reflects this trade-off: 65 W for the E-2336 versus 120 W for the E5-2669 v3.
Cache configurations differ in both per-core and shared capacities. The E-2336 offers 80 KB L1 per core and 512 KB L2 per core, while the E5-2669 v3 provides 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. Shared L3 cache is 12 MB for the E-2336 versus 30 MB for the E5-2669 v3. Memory support shows the E-2336 limited to DDR4 with dual-channel access and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the E5-2669 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with quad-channel access and 68.3 GB/s bandwidth.
PCIe capabilities differ in generation and lane count. The E-2336 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the E5-2669 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes. Both support ECC memory and lack integrated graphics. The E-2336 is active production with a launch MSRP of $284 and part number SRKN5; the E5-2669 v3 is end-of-life with part number SR1XU. Their sockets are incompatible: Socket 1200 versus Socket 2011-3. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.