CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 and Intel Xeon E-2378 represent two distinct eras of Intel server silicon, separated by six years of architectural evolution. The data shows a striking pattern: across every Cinebench workload in the comparison set, the older 18-core Haswell part edges out the newer 8-core Rocket Lake chip by a narrow margin, with the E5-4669 v3 winning all six head-to-head tests. The average benchmark scores reflect this closeness, with the E5-4669 v3 posting 4285 against the E-2378's 4232, a difference of roughly 1.3 percent. Neither processor dominates its peer group; the E5-4669 v3 sits at the 58th percentile of all CPUs, while the E-2378 lands at the 57th percentile, placing both squarely in the mid-range of the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most significant margin appears in the multi-core tests, where the E5-4669 v3's additional cores provide a measurable, though modest, advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-4669 v3 scores 1493 against the E-2378's 1474, a 1.3 percent lead. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the E5-4669 v3 posts 6222 versus 6145, again a 1.3 percent gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core narrows slightly to a 1.2 percent difference, with scores of 14815 and 14633 respectively. These results indicate that the 18-core, 36-thread configuration of the older chip compensates for its lower clock speeds, delivering roughly equivalent throughput to the 8-core, 16-thread newer part.

Single-core performance tells a nearly identical story, which is more surprising given the clock speed disparity. The E5-4669 v3's boost clock is 2.90 GHz, while the E-2378 boosts to 4.80 GHz. Yet in Cinebench R15 single-core, the E5-4669 v3 scores 210 against 208, a 1 percent win. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 878 versus 867, a 1.3 percent edge, and Cinebench R23 single-core records 2091 versus 2065, also 1.3 percent. The newer architecture's higher frequency apparently does not translate into a single-core victory, suggesting that the Haswell cores, despite their age, retain competitive per-thread efficiency in these specific workloads.

The overall impression from the head-to-head data is one of remarkable parity. The E5-4669 v3 wins every test, but the largest margin across all six benchmarks is just 1.3 percent. In real-world terms, this places the two processors within statistical noise of each other for most applications. The wins are consistent, however, and the E5-4669 v3's 6-0 record in the comparison set is unambiguous, even if the deltas are small.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-4669 v3 claims victory in every benchmark category, but the nature of those wins differs by workload type. In multi-core tests, the older chip's advantage stems from its core count: 18 cores and 36 threads versus 8 cores and 16 threads. This 10-core, 20-thread difference allows the Haswell part to distribute work across more physical resources, compensating for its lower base and boost clocks of 2.10 GHz and 2.90 GHz. The multi-core margins, while consistently positive for the E5-4669 v3, are small enough that the E-2378's higher frequency nearly closes the gap.

In single-core tests, the E5-4669 v3's wins are unexpected given the E-2378's 65 percent higher boost clock. The data shows the older chip winning by roughly the same 1 to 1.3 percent margins as in multi-core, indicating that the Haswell architecture's per-core performance in Cinebench is not meaningfully inferior to Rocket Lake. This suggests that for single-threaded legacy applications, the E5-4669 v3 holds its own, while the E-2378's frequency advantage may be more relevant in workloads not represented in this benchmark suite.

The E-2378 has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but its profile points to potential strengths outside Cinebench. Its 65 W TDP versus the E5-4669 v3's 135 W indicates significantly lower power draw, which could translate to lower operating costs and simpler cooling requirements in dense server deployments. The E-2378's dual-channel memory bus, while narrower than the E5-4669 v3's quad-channel setup, still supports DDR4 with ECC, and its Gen 4 PCIe with 20 lanes offers newer connectivity standards. These factors are not captured in the benchmark scores but are relevant for specific use cases.

Architecture Differences

The two processors sit on opposite ends of Intel's server roadmap. The E5-4669 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process node, with a die size of 662 mm². The E-2378 employs Rocket Lake-E on a 14 nm node, with a significantly smaller die at 276 mm². The process shrink and architectural redesign allow the newer chip to fit 8 cores with 80 KB of L1 cache and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, compared to the E5-4669 v3's 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. Shared L3 cache also differs substantially: the E5-4669 v3 offers 45 MB shared across all cores, while the E-2378 provides 16 MB shared.

Memory subsystems diverge as well. The E5-4669 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, whereas the E-2378 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is critical for server workloads. PCIe connectivity also differs: the E5-4669 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes, while the E-2378 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The newer standard doubles per-lane bandwidth, so the E-2378's reduced lane count may still deliver comparable or better I/O throughput for many peripherals.

Socket compatibility is a major differentiator. The E5-4669 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a platform from the Haswell-EP generation, while the E-2378 uses Intel Socket 1200, tied to the Rocket Lake-E platform. These are not interchangeable, meaning system upgrades require a full platform change. The E5-4669 v3 was released on 2015-05-31 and is end-of-life, while the E-2378 launched on 2021-09-07 and remains active in production. The E5-4669 v3's launch MSRP was $7007, while the E-2378's was $362. Both processors have locked multipliers, so overclocking is not an option for either.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2378 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What are the base and boost clock speeds for each?

A: The E5-4669 v3 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The E-2378 has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.80 GHz.

Q: How do their multi-core Cinebench R23 scores compare?

A: The E5-4669 v3 scores 14815 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the E-2378 scores 14633, giving the E5-4669 v3 a 1.2 percent lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 and the Intel Xeon E-2378 support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two?

A: The E5-4669 v3 has a TDP of 135 watts, while the E-2378 has a TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The E5-4669 v3 has an average benchmark score of 4285, compared to the E-2378's 4232, a difference of roughly 1.3 percent.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and architectural specification. The E5-4669 v3 offers 18 cores and 36 threads, while the E-2378 provides 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds favor the E-2378, with a base of 2.60 GHz and boost of 4.80 GHz, against the E5-4669 v3's 2.10 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. TDP is dramatically different, with the E5-4669 v3 drawing 135 watts versus the E-2378's 65 watts.

Socket and platform requirements are incompatible: the E5-4669 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E-2378 uses Intel Socket 1200. The E5-4669 v3 is built on a 22 nm process with a 662 mm² die, whereas the E-2378 uses a 14 nm process with a 276 mm² die. Cache hierarchies differ, with the E5-4669 v3 offering 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core plus 45 MB shared L3, while the E-2378 has 80 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core plus 16 MB shared L3.

Memory support shows the E5-4669 v3 with quad-channel DDR4 and 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, against the E-2378's dual-channel DDR4 and 51.2 GB/s. PCIe generations and lane counts also differ, with the E5-4669 v3 providing Gen 3 and 40 lanes, while the E-2378 offers Gen 4 and 20 lanes. Release dates are separated by over six years, with the E5-4669 v3 launching on 2015-05-31 and the E-2378 on 2021-09-07. Production status differs as well, with the E5-4669 v3 marked end-of-life and the E-2378 active. The launch MSRP for the E5-4669 v3 was $7007, while the E-2378 was $362.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 outperforms the Intel Xeon E-2378 in every Cinebench test included in this comparison, but the margins are uniformly small, ranging from 1.0 to 1.3 percent. The E5-4669 v3's 18-core configuration provides a slight edge in multi-threaded workloads, while its single-core results are surprisingly competitive despite a 1.90 GHz boost clock deficit. For workloads heavily dependent on multi-core throughput, the E5-4669 v3 is the safer choice based on this data, though its 135 W TDP and quad-channel memory requirements suggest a larger platform footprint.

The E-2378, despite losing all six head-to-head tests, offers a compelling alternative in scenarios where power efficiency and modern platform features matter more than raw Cinebench scores. Its 65 W TDP is less than half that of the E5-4669 v3, and its Gen 4 PCIe support provides newer I/O capabilities. The E-2378's dual-channel memory bus, while narrower, still delivers 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, which is sufficient for many server workloads. For new deployments where the platform is being selected fresh, the E-2378's active production status and lower launch MSRP of $362 versus $7007 may outweigh the small benchmark deficit.

The data does not support a clear winner for all use cases. The E5-4669 v3 wins on every measured benchmark, but the E-2378 wins on power efficiency, platform currency, and cost metrics that are not captured in the Cinebench scores. Users prioritizing maximum multi-threaded performance in legacy Haswell-EP platforms should lean toward the E5-4669 v3, while those building new systems around Socket 1200 with an eye toward power and connectivity should consider the E-2378. The 1.3 percent average benchmark gap is unlikely to be decisive in most real-world applications, making platform compatibility and system-level requirements the more meaningful differentiators.