Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5630 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a clear and consistent advantage for the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 across every recorded workload. The E5-1603 v3 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with a dominant performance gap of approximately 15% in each test. The Intel Xeon E5630 does not secure a single win in any benchmark category.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E5-1603 v3 scores 382 against the E5630's 324, a delta of -15.2% from the perspective of the older chip. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the E5-1603 v3 posts 1595 versus 1354, again a 15.1% difference. The single-core results tell the same story: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the E5-1603 v3 reaches 225 while the E5630 manages 191, a 15.1% gap. The newer processor also leads in Cinebench R23 multicore with 3798 against 3226, and in Cinebench R23 single-core with 536 versus 455, both at the same 15.1% margin.

The consistency of the delta across all five benchmarks is notable. Whether the workload is heavily threaded (multicore) or lightly threaded (single-core), the relative advantage remains nearly identical. This uniformity suggests the performance difference is not workload-specific but stems from fundamental architectural improvements rather than cache or memory behavior in a particular test.

Average benchmark scores place the E5630 at 1110 and the E5-1603 v3 at 1098, a difference of just 1.1% in favor of the older part. However, this aggregate figure masks the head-to-head reality. The average score is derived from a broader benchmark suite, while the direct Cinebench comparisons show a consistent 15% edge for the E5-1603 v3. The percentile rankings are identical: both CPUs sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs in the database. The E5630's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5557U (matching its 1110 average score exactly) and the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 (1109, a 0.1% difference). The E5-1603 v3's nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A10-8850B (matching its 1098 average score) and the Intel Pentium 6805 (1099, a -0.1% difference from the E5-1603's perspective).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel's server roadmap. The E5630 is built on the Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, using a 32 nm process node. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. The E5-1603 v3 belongs to the Haswell generation, with the Haswell-EP codename, fabricated on a 22 nm process. Its transistor count reaches 2,600 million on a 356 mm² die. The transition from 32 nm to 22 nm allowed Intel to nearly double the transistor count while increasing the die size by roughly 49%.

Core and thread configurations differ significantly. The E5630 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, utilizing Hyper-Threading to process two threads per core. The E5-1603 v3 also has 4 cores but only 4 threads, meaning it lacks Hyper-Threading. Despite having half the thread count, the newer chip still outperforms the older one by 15% in multicore tests. This indicates that the per-core efficiency gains from the Haswell architecture more than compensate for the absence of simultaneous multithreading.

Cache hierarchies show both similarities and differences. Both processors feature 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the E5630 has 12 MB shared, while the E5-1603 v3 has 10 MB shared. The E5630 actually has 20% more L3 cache, yet it still loses in every benchmark. This suggests the newer architecture's superior instruction handling and memory subsystem overcome the cache capacity disadvantage.

Memory support diverges sharply. The E5630 uses DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus. The E5-1603 v3 uses DDR4 memory with a quad-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The combination of newer memory technology and a wider bus gives the E5-1603 v3 a substantial memory throughput advantage, which is critical for server and workstation workloads that stress memory bandwidth.

PCI Express capabilities also differ. The E5630 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the E5-1603 v3 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes available from the CPU. The newer chip's PCIe Gen 3 doubles the per-lane bandwidth compared to Gen 2, and the 40-lane count provides ample connectivity for high-end workstation peripherals. Socket compatibility is entirely different as well: the E5630 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the E5-1603 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. These sockets are not interchangeable, so a platform upgrade is mandatory when moving between these processors.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The E5630 has an 80 W TDP, while the E5-1603 v3 draws 140 W. The newer chip consumes 75% more power, reflecting its higher clock speeds and larger transistor count. The base clock for the E5630 is 2.53 GHz with a boost clock of 2.80 GHz. The E5-1603 v3 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and no recorded boost clock, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency. The E5-1603 v3's base clock is 10.7% higher than the E5630's base clock, but the E5630's boost capability brings it closer to parity in single-threaded scenarios.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is consistently faster. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 225 versus 191 for the E5630, a 15.1% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 536 versus 455, also a 15.1% gap.

Q: Does the E5630's higher thread count help it win any benchmarks?

A: No. Despite having 8 threads versus 4 threads on the E5-1603 v3, the E5630 loses all five head-to-head benchmarks. The E5-1603 v3 wins every multicore test by approximately 15%, showing that architectural efficiency outweighs raw thread count.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The E5630 has an average benchmark score of 1110, while the E5-1603 v3 scores 1098. The difference is 1.1% in favor of the E5630. However, this aggregate metric is not reflected in the direct head-to-head tests, where the E5-1603 v3 wins every comparison.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The E5630 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus. The E5-1603 v3 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and offers a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Are these processors pin-compatible with each other?

A: No. The E5630 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the E5-1603 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. They require different motherboards and cannot be swapped into the same platform.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The E5630 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-1603 v3 has 10 MB. The E5630 holds a 20% L3 cache advantage, but this does not translate into a performance win in any benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5630 | Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 |

|----------------|------------------|------------------------|

| Cores | 4 | 4 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.53 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.80 GHz | None recorded |

| TDP | 80 W | 140 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Westmere (Westmere-EP) | Haswell (Haswell-EP) |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 2,600 million |

| Die Size | 239 mm² | 356 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 59.7 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Release Date | 2010-03-15 | 2014-09-07 |

| Part Number | SLBVB | SR20K |

The specification table reveals a generational leap. The E5-1603 v3 doubles the transistor count, moves to a smaller process node, adopts newer memory technology, and increases PCIe bandwidth. The E5630 counters with more threads, more L3 cache, lower power consumption, and a boost clock that nearly matches the E5-1603 v3's fixed clock. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both support ECC memory. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leads to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the superior processor in every direct comparison. It wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmarks with a consistent 15.1% margin. This advantage holds across both single-core and multicore workloads, indicating a fundamental architectural edge rather than a workload-specific quirk. The E5-1603 v3 achieves this despite having half the thread count of the E5630, demonstrating that the Haswell architecture's per-core performance and memory subsystem efficiency are decisive.

The E5630 does retain some technical advantages. It offers 8 threads versus 4, has 20% more L3 cache, and draws 75% less power (80 W versus 140 W). Its average benchmark score of 1110 is also slightly higher than the E5-1603 v3's 1098. However, these advantages do not translate into any benchmark victory. The thread count surplus is neutralized by architectural efficiency, the extra cache does not compensate for slower memory bandwidth, and the lower TDP is a platform-level consideration rather than a performance metric.

For users building or upgrading a server or workstation, the choice depends on platform constraints. The E5630 requires an Intel Socket 1366 motherboard with DDR3 memory. The E5-1603 v3 requires an Intel Socket 2011-3 motherboard with DDR4 memory. These are entirely separate platforms, so the decision is not simply about the CPU but about the entire system. The data shows that the E5-1603 v3 platform delivers better raw performance in Cinebench tests, with a 15% advantage across the board. The E5630 platform offers lower power consumption and higher thread count, which could matter in specific heavily threaded workloads not represented in the recorded benchmark suite.

Given the recorded data, the E5-1603 v3 is the clear performance pick. Its consistent 15% lead in every benchmark, combined with modern memory and PCIe support, makes it the stronger choice for workloads that prioritize throughput. The E5630 remains relevant only in scenarios where its lower TDP, higher thread count, or existing Socket 1366 infrastructure are the primary considerations. Both processors sit at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, indicating that neither is a top-tier performer by modern standards, but within this direct comparison, the E5-1603 v3 is the definitive winner.