Intel Xeon E-2378G vs Intel Xeon W-2155 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Xeon E-2378G compare to the Intel Xeon W-2155 in multi-core performance?

A: The E-2378G wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1811 versus 1767 for the W-2155, a 2.5% advantage. In R20 multi-core, it records 7549 compared to 7365, and in R23 multi-core, 17974 versus 17538, both also 2.5% ahead.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The E-2378G leads in every single-core test. Its Cinebench R15 single-core score is 255 versus 249, R20 single-core is 1065 versus 1039, and R23 single-core is 2537 versus 2475. Each win comes in at a 2.4% or 2.5% margin.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for these two Xeon processors?

A: The Xeon E-2378G has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon W-2155 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The W-2155 has two more cores and four more threads, yet the E-2378G still wins in all benchmark comparisons.

Q: How does the memory configuration differ between the two?

A: The E-2378G uses dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the W-2155 uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The Xeon E-2378G was released on 2021-09-07, while the Xeon W-2155 was released on 2017-08-28. The W-2155 is marked as end-of-life in the database, while the E-2378G is active.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Xeon E-2378G includes UHD Graphics P750, whereas the Xeon W-2155 has no integrated graphics listed.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear overall winner: the Intel Xeon E-2378G. It wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with each victory falling between 2.4% and 2.5%. This is consistent across both single-core and multi-core workloads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23.

The Xeon W-2155 does have advantages in raw specifications. It offers 10 cores and 20 threads versus 8 cores and 16 threads, a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 2.80 GHz, quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Yet none of these translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

For a buyer choosing between these two, the E-2378G is the stronger pick for Cinebench workloads specifically. Its single-core performance is notably better, which can matter for lightly threaded tasks. Its multi-core scores also hold up despite having fewer cores, thanks to its higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz versus 4.50 GHz and its newer architecture.

The W-2155 remains relevant in scenarios that prioritize memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count, as those are not captured in the Cinebench results. However, the benchmark database shows the E-2378G ahead in every measured test. The E-2378G is also the only one of the two still in active production, while the W-2155 is end-of-life.

The verdict is straightforward: choose the E-2378G for benchmark performance and active platform support. Choose the W-2155 only if the specific platform features, such as quad-channel memory or 48 PCIe lanes, are essential to a workload that does not rely on the Cinebench metrics recorded here.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E-2378G scores 1811 against the W-2155's 1767, a 2.5% margin. The R15 single-core test shows 255 versus 249, a 2.4% edge. These two tests set the pattern for the rest of the comparison.

Cinebench R20 multi-core delivers 7549 for the E-2378G and 7365 for the W-2155, again 2.5%. The R20 single-core test shows 1065 versus 1039, also 2.5%. The consistency of these deltas suggests a stable performance gap that does not widen or shrink based on workload type or rendering engine version.

Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the trend with 17974 versus 17538, a 2.5% difference. The R23 single-core test shows 2537 versus 2475, also 2.5%. The E-2378G wins every test, and the margin never exceeds 2.5%.

The interesting implication here is that the W-2155's two additional cores do not help it overcome the E-2378G's architectural efficiency. Each E-2378G core appears to deliver substantially more work per clock, which offsets the W-2155's core count advantage. The boost clock difference, 5.10 GHz versus 4.50 GHz, likely plays a role in both single-core and multi-core results, as all-core boost behavior benefits from the higher ceiling.

Another point of note: the W-2155 has a higher base clock of 3.30 GHz versus 2.80 GHz, but under sustained multi-core load, the boost behavior matters more. The recorded multi-core scores show the E-2378G ahead by 44 points in R15, 184 points in R20, and 436 points in R23. These are modest but consistent wins.

The average benchmark score in the database reflects a similar story. The E-2378G has an average benchmark score of 5199, while the W-2155 sits at 5072. Both processors share the same 60th percentile ranking among all CPUs, meaning they occupy a similar overall performance tier despite the E-2378G's consistent lead in these specific tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications. The E-2378G has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the W-2155 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The E-2378G has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 5.10 GHz; the W-2155 has a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz.

The E-2378G has a TDP of 80 watts, while the W-2155 has a TDP of 140 watts. The E-2378G uses Intel Socket 1200, and the W-2155 uses Intel Socket 2066. The E-2378G supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the W-2155 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes.

Memory configuration differs as well. The E-2378G uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the W-2155 uses quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

The E-2378G includes integrated UHD Graphics P750, while the W-2155 has no integrated graphics. The E-2378G is active in production, and the W-2155 is end-of-life. Release dates also differ: the E-2378G launched on 2021-09-07, and the W-2155 launched on 2017-08-28.

Cache layouts are not identical. The E-2378G has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, with 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The W-2155 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with 13.75 MB of shared L3 cache.

The die size differs notably: the E-2378G measures 276 mm², while the W-2155 measures 484 mm². Both are built on Intel's 14 nm process node. The part numbers also differ, with the E-2378G carrying SRKN1 and the W-2155 carrying SR3LR.

Architecture Differences

The E-2378G is based on Rocket Lake, specifically the Rocket Lake-E generation within the Xeon E-2300 series. The W-2155 is based on Skylake, specifically Skylake-W in the Xeon W family. Both use a 14 nm process node from Intel, so the manufacturing technology is the same.

The architectural generation gap is significant. Rocket Lake is a newer design than Skylake, and the benchmark data reflects this. The E-2378G achieves higher single-core scores despite a lower base clock, which points to a higher instructions-per-clock capability in the newer core design. The 5.10 GHz boost clock also gives it a clear frequency advantage in single-threaded workloads.

Cache architecture differs between the two. The E-2378G allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 512 KB of L2 per core, with 16 MB of shared L3. The W-2155 allocates 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 13.75 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L2 on the W-2155 does not compensate for the overall performance gap in the recorded benchmarks.

The E-2378G supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the W-2155 supports the older PCIe Gen 3 standard with 48 lanes. This is a trade-off: the E-2378G offers faster per-lane bandwidth, while the W-2155 offers more lanes for expansion.

The memory controller also differs. The E-2378G runs dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the W-2155 runs quad-channel with 85.3 GB/s. The W-2155 has a clear theoretical memory bandwidth advantage, but this does not show up as a win in the Cinebench results.

The E-2378G includes integrated UHD Graphics P750, a feature absent from the W-2155. This makes the E-2378G more self-contained for systems that do not require a discrete GPU for display output.

Where Each One Wins

The E-2378G wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. It leads in single-core performance across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, with margins of 2.4% to 2.5%. This makes it the stronger choice for workloads that depend on single-threaded speed, such as lightly threaded applications, legacy software, or tasks with strict per-core latency requirements.

It also wins in multi-core performance across all three Cinebench versions, despite having fewer cores. The 2.5% multi-core margins indicate that the E-2378G's core efficiency and higher boost clock outweigh the W-2155's two extra cores and four extra threads. For rendering workloads similar to Cinebench, the E-2378G is the better performer.

The E-2378G also wins on platform currency. It is an active product, while the W-2155 is end-of-life. Its newer Rocket Lake architecture brings PCIe Gen 4 support and integrated graphics, features the W-2155 lacks.

The W-2155, however, has its own areas of advantage that are not reflected in the Cinebench benchmarks. Its quad-channel memory controller provides 85.3 GB/s of bandwidth, which is substantially higher than the E-2378G's 51.2 GB/s. Workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth-bound, such as certain data analysis or in-memory computing tasks, could favor the W-2155 despite its benchmark deficit.

The W-2155 also offers 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 20 Gen 4 lanes on the E-2378G. For systems with many expansion cards, storage controllers, or GPUs, the higher lane count can be a deciding factor. The W-2155's larger die, at 484 mm², reflects this broader I/O capability.

In terms of core count, the W-2155 has 10 cores and 20 threads, which may be preferable for parallel workloads that scale with core count rather than per-core efficiency. The recorded Cinebench data shows the E-2378G winning despite this, but other multi-threaded applications not present in this dataset could behave differently.

The production status also matters for long-term planning. The E-2378G remains active, while the W-2155 is end-of-life. For new system builds, the E-2378G offers a clearer path for availability and support.

In summary, the E-2378G is the benchmark champion and the recommended choice for Cinebench-style workloads and general single-threaded performance. The W-2155 remains a viable option only for workloads that specifically require its quad-channel memory bandwidth, 48 PCIe lanes, or higher core count, none of which were sufficient to win a single recorded benchmark test.