Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is remarkably one-sided. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins every single recorded test, six out of six, against the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3. The margins are narrow in every case, but the direction is consistent across all Cinebench versions and both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In multi-core performance, the E5-2609 v3 scores 386 points in Cinebench R15 compared to 382 for the E5-1603 v3, a 1% advantage. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the E5-2609 v3 records 1611 against 1595, again a 1% lead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the same story: 3836 for the E5-2609 v3 versus 3798 for the E5-1603 v3, with a 1% delta. These are tight margins, but they hold consistently across every generation of the Cinebench suite.

Single-core results are similarly close. The E5-2609 v3 scores 54 in Cinebench R15 single-core, identical to the E5-1603 v3's 54, with a 0% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the E5-2609 v3 posts 227 against 225, a 0.9% edge. Cinebench R23 single-core follows with 541 versus 536, again 0.9% ahead. The single-core advantage is smaller than the multi-core gap, but it still favors the E5-2609 v3 in four of the six tests, with one exact tie.

The average benchmark score tells a similar tale. The E5-2609 v3 averages 1109 across the recorded benchmarks, while the E5-1603 v3 averages 1098. That gap of roughly 1% lands both processors in the 31st percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they sit at the same performance tier overall. The E5-2609 v3's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-4570T at 1108 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Xeon E5630 at 1110 (0.1% ahead), while the E5-1603 v3 sits alongside the AMD PRO A10-8850B at 1098 (0% delta) and the Intel Pentium 6805 at 1099 (0.1% ahead). Neither chip escapes the mid-range pack, but the E5-2609 v3 consistently occupies the higher position.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-2609 v3 wins everywhere in the recorded data, but the nature of those wins differs by workload type. In multi-core tests, the advantage comes from its six cores versus four, even though its base clock is lower. The E5-2609 v3 runs at 1900 MHz while the E5-1603 v3 runs at 2800 MHz, yet the extra two cores more than compensate. The multi-core deltas of 1% across all three Cinebench versions indicate that the core count advantage and clock speed disadvantage roughly cancel out, with the core count winning by a hair.

Single-core workloads tell a different story. Here the E5-1603 v3's higher base clock of 2800 MHz should theoretically give it an edge, but the data shows otherwise. The E5-2609 v3 still wins or ties in every single-core test, with deltas of 0.9% in R20 and R23 and a tie in R15. This suggests that the per-core performance is nearly identical between the two Haswell designs, and the higher clocked four-core part cannot translate its frequency advantage into a measurable lead.

For workloads that scale with core count, such as rendering or heavily threaded content creation, the E5-2609 v3 is the safer choice. For workloads that depend on single-thread speed, the difference is negligible enough that either processor would deliver similar results. The data does not show any test where the E5-1603 v3 takes the lead, so users prioritizing raw benchmark scores in this database have no scenario where the four-core part wins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 386 versus 382 in Cinebench R15, 1611 versus 1595 in Cinebench R20, and 3836 versus 3798 in Cinebench R23, each a 1% advantage.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head data records six wins for the E5-2609 v3 and zero wins for the E5-1603 v3. The closest result is a tie in Cinebench R15 single-core, where both score 54.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The E5-2609 v3 has an average score of 1109, with the Intel Core i5-4570T at 1108 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Xeon E5630 at 1110 (0.1% ahead). The E5-1603 v3 averages 1098, matching the AMD PRO A10-8850B exactly and trailing the Intel Pentium 6805 by 0.1%.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the E5-1603 v3 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor supports Hyper-Threading, so thread counts equal core counts for both.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The E5-1603 v3 runs at 2800 MHz, significantly higher than the E5-2609 v3's 1900 MHz. Neither processor has a boost clock listed in the database.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory configuration?

A: Both support DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and ECC memory. They differ in memory bandwidth: the E5-2609 v3 records 51.2 GB/s, while the E5-1603 v3 records 59.7 GB/s.

Specification Differences

The two processors share the same socket, architecture generation, process node, and many platform features, but several specifications diverge.

Core and thread counts differ: the E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, the E5-1603 v3 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ substantially, with the E5-1603 v3 at 2800 MHz versus the E5-2609 v3 at 1900 MHz. Neither has a boost clock. Thermal design power also diverges: the E5-2609 v3 is rated at 85 watts, while the E5-1603 v3 is rated at 140 watts.

L3 cache differs: the E5-2609 v3 has 15 MB shared, the E5-1603 v3 has 10 MB shared. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core respectively. Memory bandwidth differs, with the E5-1603 v3 at 59.7 GB/s and the E5-2609 v3 at 51.2 GB/s, despite both using quad-channel DDR4. The launch MSRP is listed only for the E5-2609 v3 at $306; the E5-1603 v3 has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers also differ: SR1YC for the E5-2609 v3, SR20K for the E5-1603 v3.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, and both use a 22 nm process node from Intel's foundry. Transistor count is identical at 2,600 million, and die size matches at 356 mm². Both use the Intel Socket 2011-3 and support PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. Neither includes integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers.

The core-level design is the same per-core cache structure: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The shared L3 differs, with the E5-2609 v3 carrying 15 MB versus 10 MB for the E5-1603 v3. This larger L3 pool on the six-core part likely contributes to its consistent edge in single-core tests despite the lower clock speed.

Both processors target the server and workstation segment, support ECC memory, and were released on the same date. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status. The memory controller supports quad-channel DDR4 on both, though the E5-1603 v3 achieves higher peak bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s compared to 51.2 GB/s. The TDP difference is notable: the E5-1603 v3 draws 140 watts despite having fewer cores, likely due to its much higher base clock of 2800 MHz, while the E5-2609 v3's 85-watt rating reflects its more conservative 1900 MHz clock.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points clearly in one direction. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 wins every recorded test, taking all six head-to-head matchups with deltas ranging from 0% to 1%. Its advantage is small but universal across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core workloads.

Users who prioritize multi-threaded rendering or compute workloads should choose the E5-2609 v3. Its six cores deliver a consistent 1% lead over the four-core E5-1603 v3 in every multi-core test, and its larger 15 MB L3 cache provides additional headroom for cache-sensitive workloads. The lower 85-watt TDP also makes it the more thermally efficient choice, especially in dense server environments.

Users who rely heavily on single-threaded performance face a near tie. The E5-2609 v3 wins or ties every single-core test, but the margins are razor-thin: 0.9% in R20 and R23, and an exact tie in R15. The E5-1603 v3's higher 2800 MHz base clock does not translate into a single-core victory in any recorded benchmark, so there is no data-driven reason to prefer it for single-thread workloads.

The E5-1603 v3 does offer higher memory bandwidth at 59.7 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s, which could matter for memory-bound applications that the Cinebench suite does not capture. However, the recorded benchmarks show no scenario where this advantage produces a win. Given that the E5-2609 v3 also carries a lower TDP and a larger L3 cache, the database evidence favors it across every measured dimension. The E5-1603 v3 remains a viable alternative only for users who specifically need the higher memory bandwidth and can tolerate a 140-watt TDP, but the benchmark results do not support choosing it on performance grounds.