CPU Comparison

The benchmark data presents a striking picture: the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 and the Intel Xeon E-2336 are nearly inseparable in raw Cinebench performance, yet they are built on fundamentally different design philosophies. The E5-2698B v3 is a 16-core, 32-thread Haswell-EP part from a previous era, while the E-2336 is a 6-core, 12-thread Rocket Lake-E chip from a newer generation. Despite the massive core-count disparity, the E-2336’s much higher clock speeds allow it to nearly match the older processor in multi-threaded tests and come within a hair of its single-thread scores. The data shows that the E5-2698B v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but by a margin of only 0.5% in every single test. This is a statistical tie, making the choice between them dependent entirely on platform-level considerations like socket, memory bandwidth, and PCIe generation, rather than raw compute throughput.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion for most buyers: the Intel Xeon E-2336 is the more sensible pick for new systems, while the E5-2698B v3 is only relevant for those already invested in the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. The E-2336 matches the E5-2698B v3 within 0.5% on every benchmark, yet it does so with a 65 W TDP compared to 135 W, a modern Intel Socket 1200 platform, and Gen 4 PCIe connectivity. The E5-2698B v3’s only advantages are its 16-core/32-thread configuration, larger 40 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bus, which offer theoretical headroom that the benchmark scores do not reflect as a practical win.

For a user building a new server or workstation, the E-2336 is the obvious choice. It is an active production part with a launch MSRP of $284, whereas the E5-2698B v3 is end-of-life. The E-2336’s higher boost clock of 4.80 GHz versus 3.40 GHz compensates for having 10 fewer cores, delivering nearly identical Cinebench results. The E5-2698B v3, however, remains a viable option for someone upgrading an existing Socket 2011-3 system, where its 16 cores and 32 threads could potentially scale better in workloads not captured by Cinebench’s specific test suite. The percentile ranking for both is an identical 57th percentile, reinforcing that they are peers in overall CPU performance.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head data shows that the E5-2698B v3 wins all six benchmark comparisons, but the 0.5% deltas are within the noise of run-to-run variation. The E5-2698B v3’s victories come in both multi-core and single-core tests, including Cinebench R23 multi-core (13843 vs 13777) and Cinebench R23 single-core (1954 vs 1945). This suggests its 16 physical cores and 40 MB of shared L3 cache provide a slight edge even in lightly-threaded tests, likely due to better cache locality.

The E-2336, despite losing every benchmark, wins on platform attributes. It offers a 65 W TDP, which is less than half of the E5-2698B v3’s 135 W, leading to lower cooling and power requirements. It also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the E5-2698B v3 is limited to Gen 3 with 40 lanes. For workloads that are I/O-bound or require the latest NVMe storage or GPUs, the E-2336’s newer PCIe generation is a decisive advantage that no Cinebench score can convey. The E-2336 also has a higher base clock (2.90 GHz vs 2.00 GHz), which helps with responsiveness in everyday tasks.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The E5-2698B v3 is based on the Haswell microarchitecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, manufactured on Intel’s 22 nm process node. It integrates 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The E-2336, in contrast, uses the Rocket Lake microarchitecture (Rocket Lake-E), built on a 14 nm process. Its die size is 276 mm², and its transistor count is not listed in the data. This generational gap explains the clock speed difference: the older 22 nm process cannot reach the high frequencies of the newer 14 nm design.

The cache configurations also differ significantly. The E5-2698B v3 has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a massive 40 MB shared L3 cache. The E-2336 has larger per-core caches at 80 KB L1 and 512 KB L2, but a much smaller 12 MB shared L3. The E5-2698B v3’s larger L3 cache is a direct result of its 16-core design, while the E-2336’s smaller cache is typical of a 6-core part. Both support DDR4 memory and ECC, but the E5-2698B v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the E-2336 uses dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s. Neither has integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

The specifications where the two differ are stark. The core count is the most obvious: 16 cores and 32 threads for the E5-2698B v3 versus 6 cores and 12 threads for the E-2336. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz and 2.90 GHz, respectively, while boost clocks are 3.40 GHz and 4.80 GHz. The TDP difference is substantial at 135 W versus 65 W. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 2011-3 for the E5-2698B v3 and Intel Socket 1200 for the E-2336.

Memory bandwidth and PCIe capabilities are also major differentiators. The E5-2698B v3 offers quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s, while the E-2336 is dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s. The E5-2698B v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E-2336 provides 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The production statuses differ, with the E5-2698B v3 marked as end-of-life and the E-2336 as active. The E-2336 has a release date of September 7, 2021, and a launch MSRP of $284; the E5-2698B v3 has no listed launch MSRP. The part numbers are SR21T for the older chip and SRKN5 for the newer one.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent, with the E5-2698B v3 edging out the E-2336 by exactly 0.5% in all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the scores are 1395 versus 1388, a 7-point difference. In single-core R15, it is 196 versus 195, a single point. The R20 multi-core test shows 5814 versus 5786, a 28-point gap, while single-core R20 is 820 versus 816. The most demanding test, Cinebench R23 multi-core, shows 13843 versus 13777, a 66-point difference. Single-core R23 is 1954 versus 1945.

These numbers tell a clear story: the E5-2698B v3’s 16-core advantage is almost perfectly neutralized by the E-2336’s 4.80 GHz boost clock. The 0.5% delta across every test suggests that the workloads are not scaling with core count in a way that benefits the E5-2698B v3, nor are they clock-bound enough to let the E-2336 pull ahead. The average benchmark score for the E5-2698B v3 is 4004, while the E-2336 sits at 3985, a 0.5% difference that aligns with the head-to-head results. The nearest rivals for the E5-2698B v3 include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655G at 4010 (-0.2%) and the Intel Core i5-12400T at 4019 (-0.4%), while the E-2336’s rivals include the Intel Xeon D-2733NT at 3984 (0%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650G at 3977 (0.2%).

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2336 has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: How much faster is the E-2336’s boost clock?

A: The E-2336 boosts to 4.80 GHz, which is 1.40 GHz higher than the E5-2698B v3’s 3.40 GHz boost clock.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The E5-2698B v3 scores 13843, and the E-2336 scores 13777. The E5-2698B v3 leads by 0.5%.

Q: Which CPU supports PCIe Gen 4?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2336 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The E5-2698B v3 is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the E5-2698B v3 and the E-2336 support ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The E5-2698B v3 has a TDP of 135 W, while the E-2336 has a TDP of 65 W.