CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 and the Intel Xeon E-2378G represent two very different approaches to server processing, separated by nearly five years of platform evolution. The E5-2699A v4 is a 22-core Broadwell-EP part designed for massive parallel throughput, while the E-2378G is an 8-core Rocket Lake-E chip built for high clock speeds and responsiveness. Benchmark data shows that despite the E5’s overwhelming core-count advantage, the E-2378G wins every single head-to-head comparison, albeit by a narrow margin.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are striking in their consistency. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E-2378G emerges victorious, yet the deltas are remarkably small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E-2378G scores 1811 against the E5-2699A v4’s 1796, a difference of just -0.8% from the E5’s perspective. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 255 versus 253, again a -0.8% delta.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The E-2378G posts 7549 in multi-core while the E5-2699A v4 manages 7486. The single-core R20 results are 1065 against 1056. These margins are tight enough that they fall within typical run-to-run variance, but the direction is unambiguous. The E-2378G leads in every category.

Cinebench R23, the most recent test in the set, shows the largest absolute gap. The E-2378G scores 17974 in multi-core versus 17826 for the E5-2699A v4. In single-core R23, the E-2378G hits 2537 while the E5-2699A v4 trails at 2516. The average benchmark score calculation reflects this overall balance: the E5-2699A v4 averages 5259 across all tests, while the E-2378G averages 5199. This places the E5-2699A v4 slightly ahead on aggregate, despite losing every direct comparison.

What makes these results remarkable is the core disparity. The E5-2699A v4 has 22 cores and 44 threads, while the E-2378G has just 8 cores and 16 threads. The fact that the E-2378G wins multi-core tests against a CPU with nearly three times the core count speaks to its architectural efficiency and much higher clock speeds. The E5’s base clock is 2.40 GHz with a 3.60 GHz boost, while the E-2378G runs at 2.80 GHz base and boosts to 5.10 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different architectural lineages. The E5-2699A v4 is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-EP codename, and belongs to the Xeon E5 generation. It uses a 14 nm process node manufactured by Intel, with a substantial die size of 456 mm². The chip packs 7,200 million transistors, reflecting its high core count and massive shared L3 cache.

The E-2378G, by contrast, uses the Rocket Lake architecture with the Rocket Lake-E codename. It is part of the Xeon E-2300 series and also uses a 14 nm process node from Intel. However, its die size is significantly smaller at 276 mm², and no transistor count is listed in the data. This smaller die size combined with fewer cores explains its lower complexity and power requirements.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The E5-2699A v4 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a massive 55 MB of shared L3 cache. The E-2378G offers more per-core cache at 80 KB L1 and 512 KB L2, but its shared L3 is only 16 MB. The E5’s 55 MB L3 is more than three times larger, which helps compensate for its lower clock speeds in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory architecture also diverges. The E5-2699A v4 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The E-2378G uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server platforms. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the E5-2699A v4 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the E-2378G offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clear pattern: the E-2378G wins every benchmark in the head-to-head set. However, the context matters. The E5-2699A v4’s average benchmark score of 5259 is actually higher than the E-2378G’s 5199, which suggests the E5 performs better on the broader benchmark suite that feeds into that average. The Geekbench results support this interpretation, though those tests are not part of the head-to-head set.

Looking at the E5-2699A v4’s full benchmark list, it scores 10118 in Geekbench multi-core and 1020 in Geekbench single-core. These numbers are not directly comparable to the E-2378G, which lacks Geekbench results in the data. But the Cinebench results show that the E-2378G’s wins are narrow, typically under 1%. This suggests that in workloads that scale well with core count, the E5-2699A v4’s 22 cores and 44 threads provide a strong foundation, even if its older architecture limits per-core performance.

The E-2378G’s advantage is most pronounced in single-core tests, where its 5.10 GHz boost clock delivers a meaningful edge. The single-core R23 result of 2537 versus 2516 represents a 0.8% lead, which is consistent across all Cinebench versions. For workloads that depend on single-threaded performance, such as legacy applications or lightly threaded database queries, the E-2378G’s higher clock speed is the deciding factor.

For multi-core throughput, the story is more nuanced. The E-2378G wins multi-core tests, but only by the same 0.8% margin. Given that the E5-2699A v4 has 22 cores versus 8, this is a remarkable achievement for the newer chip. The E-2378G’s per-core efficiency, combined with its higher base clock, allows it to match and slightly exceed the older 22-core processor in these specific tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. Core and thread counts are the most obvious divergence: the E5-2699A v4 offers 22 cores and 44 threads, while the E-2378G provides 8 cores and 16 threads. Clock speeds also differ significantly, with the E5-2699A v4 running at 2.40 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, compared to the E-2378G’s 2.80 GHz base and 5.10 GHz boost.

Power consumption reflects these architectural choices. The E5-2699A v4 has a TDP of 145 watts, while the E-2378G draws only 80 watts. This 65-watt difference is substantial for server deployments where power density matters. The E5-2699A v4 uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E-2378G uses Intel Socket 1200, meaning they are not interchangeable in existing systems.

Cache specifications differ in both per-core and shared configurations. The E5-2699A v4 has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 55 MB shared L3. The E-2378G has 80 KB L1 and 512 KB L2 per core with 16 MB shared L3. Memory channels also differ: quad-channel for the E5-2699A v4 versus dual-channel for the E-2378G, with corresponding bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s.

PCIe capabilities show a generational leap. The E5-2699A v4 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, while the E-2378G offers PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The newer standard doubles per-lane bandwidth, so the E-2378G’s fewer lanes may still deliver comparable overall I/O throughput. The E-2378G also includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics P750, which the E5-2699A v4 lacks entirely.

Production status and release timing differ as well. The E5-2699A v4 is end-of-life and was released on 2016-10-24, while the E-2378G is active and was released on 2021-09-07. The E5-2699A v4 has a launch MSRP of $4938, while the E-2378G has a launch MSRP of $494. Both processors have locked multipliers, and the part numbers are SR30YQLPM for the E5-2699A v4 and SRKN1 for the E-2378G.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 has 22 cores and 44 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2378G has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the maximum boost clock for each processor?

A: The E5-2699A v4 boosts to 3.60 GHz, while the E-2378G boosts to 5.10 GHz.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The E5-2699A v4 has quad-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the E-2378G has dual-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the E5-2699A v4 and the E-2378G support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor won the head-to-head benchmark comparison?

A: The E-2378G won all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with each win by a margin of -0.8% from the E5-2699A v4’s perspective.

Q: What are the production statuses of these processors?

A: The E5-2699A v4 is end-of-life, while the E-2378G is active.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear verdict for most workloads: the Intel Xeon E-2378G is the superior processor in terms of raw benchmark performance. It wins every head-to-head Cinebench test by a consistent 0.8% margin, and it does so while consuming only 80 watts of power compared to the E5-2699A v4’s 145 watts. The E-2378G also offers a higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz, newer PCIe Gen 4 connectivity, and integrated graphics, all in a more compact 276 mm² die.

However, the E5-2699A v4 is not without its merits. Its average benchmark score of 5259 is higher than the E-2378G’s 5199, suggesting that on the broader benchmark suite, the 22-core part performs better. The 55 MB of shared L3 cache and 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth provide advantages for cache-heavy and memory-bandwidth-intensive workloads. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also offer more total I/O connectivity than the E-2378G’s 20 Gen 4 lanes.

For users with workloads that scale well across many cores and can utilize the E5-2699A v4’s full 44-thread capacity, the older processor may still be the right choice. Its end-of-life status means it is no longer in production, but for existing Socket 2011-3 systems, it represents a high-core-count upgrade path. The E5-2699A v4’s 22 cores and 44 threads provide substantial parallel processing capability that the E-2378G cannot match in terms of raw thread count.

For new system builds, the E-2378G is the clear recommendation. It is an active product with better benchmark scores, lower power consumption, and modern features like PCIe Gen 4 and integrated graphics. Its 8 cores and 16 threads are sufficient for many server workloads, and its 5.10 GHz boost clock ensures strong single-threaded performance. The data shows that in the specific Cinebench tests, the E-2378G is consistently ahead, making it the better choice for users who prioritize benchmark performance and energy efficiency.