Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 and the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 occupy the same corner of the database: both are end-of-life Socket 2011-3 Xeons, both sit in the 42nd percentile against all recorded CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by less than two percent. Yet they arrive at nearly identical performance through opposite means. One is a low-power Haswell-EP server part with six physical cores running at a modest 2.0 GHz base clock; the other is a desktop-class Broadwell-EP chip with four cores, eight threads, and clocks nearly twice as high. The recorded data makes this matchup unusually clean to analyze, because the benchmark gap between them is small enough that platform characteristics, not raw throughput, become the deciding factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The sweep is unanimous: the E5-2608L v3 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. The margins, however, are narrow enough that neither chip can be called decisively faster.

In Cinebench R15, the E5-2608L v3 posts a multi-core score of 637 against 627 for the E5-1620 v4, a lead of 1.6 percent. Single-core results mirror that pattern: 90 versus 88, a 2.3 percent edge, which is the largest gap in the entire dataset. Cinebench R20 tells the same story at slightly higher resolution. Multi-core stands at 2658 to 2616, again 1.6 percent, and single-core is 375 to 369, also 1.6 percent. Cinebench R23, the most modern test in the set, repeats the pattern almost exactly: 6329 to 6230 in multi-core and 893 to 879 in single-core, both 1.6 percent apart.

The consistency of these numbers is itself informative. A 1.6 to 2.3 percent spread across three different Cinebench generations, both single- and multi-threaded, indicates that the two processors deliver effectively equivalent rendering throughput in practice. There is no test where the E5-1620 v4's much higher clock speeds translate into a measurable single-core win, and no test where the E5-2608L v3's two extra physical cores produce a meaningful multi-core blowout. The six-core, six-thread part without a boost clock simply holds parity with the four-core, eight-thread part running at 3.5 GHz base and 3.8 GHz boost.

Contextualizing against the wider database reinforces this. The E5-2608L v3 carries an average benchmark score of 1830, and its closest rivals by that aggregate metric include the Intel Xeon D-1537 at an identical 1830, the Intel Core i5-8305G at 1831, the AMD Ryzen 5 4600U at 1832 (just 0.1 percent ahead), and the Intel Core i7-4790S at 1827. The E5-1620 v4 averages 1802, with the Intel Core i3-9100 at 1806, the Intel Core i3-9320 at 1808, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810, and the AMD Opteron 6281 at 1789 clustered around it. Both chips therefore sit in the same performance band as entry-level desktop quad-cores and efficient mobile Ryzen parts, and both rank in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent consecutive Intel Xeon E5 generations, and the architectural contrast is stark despite the benchmark parity.

The E5-2608L v3 is built on the Haswell microarchitecture, codename Haswell-EP, on Intel's 22 nm process. It packs six cores and six threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading: each core handles one thread at a time. Its base clock is 2000 MHz and no boost clock is recorded, which is characteristic of the low-power "L" server SKUs, reflected in its 52 W TDP. The die is large at 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors, and cache allocation favors capacity: 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a generous 15 MB of shared L3.

The E5-1620 v4 is a Broadwell-EP part on Intel's 14 nm process, a full node shrink. It has four cores but eight threads thanks to SMT, a 3.50 GHz base clock, and a 3.80 GHz boost clock. Its TDP is 140 W, nearly triple that of its rival, a direct consequence of those aggressive frequencies. The smaller 14 nm die measures 246 mm² yet houses more transistors at 3,400 million. Its shared L3 is smaller at 10 MB, while L1 and L2 per core match the Haswell part at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively.

Common ground is substantial. Both use Socket 2011-3, both support DDR4 on a quad-channel bus, both support ECC memory, and both expose PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes. The differences that matter are memory bandwidth and market positioning. The E5-1620 v4's quad-channel DDR4 subsystem delivers 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth against 59.7 GB/s for the E5-2608L v3, a substantial advantage for bandwidth-hungry workloads even though its core count is lower. Segment-wise, the E5-2608L v3 was aimed at servers and workstations, the E5-1620 v4 at the desktop. Both are now end-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests, but by margins of only 1.6 to 2.3 percent. In practical terms the two are performance-equivalent.

Q: How do their core and thread configurations differ?

A: The E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads with no Hyper-Threading. The E5-1620 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads, using simultaneous multithreading to expose twice the logical cores.

Q: Which chip runs at higher clocks?

A: The E5-1620 v4, by a wide margin. It base-clocks at 3.50 GHz and boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the E5-2608L v3 runs at a 2.0 GHz base with no boost clock recorded.

Q: What about power consumption?

A: The E5-2608L v3 is rated at 52 W TDP versus 140 W for the E5-1620 v4. The low-power server part delivers the same benchmark results at a fraction of the thermal envelope.

Q: Do they use the same socket and memory?

A: Yes. Both fit Socket 2011-3, both support DDR4 ECC memory over a quad-channel bus. The E5-1620 v4 offers higher memory bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Which has more cache?

A: The E5-2608L v3, with 15 MB of shared L3 against 10 MB for the E5-1620 v4. L1 and L2 per-core sizes are identical between the two.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the E5-2608L v3 as the technically superior choice on efficiency grounds. It matches or slightly exceeds the E5-1620 v4 in every benchmark while consuming a 52 W TDP instead of 140 W, and it carries more L3 cache and two additional physical cores for workloads that scale with core count rather than threads. For a server or dense deployment where thermals matter, it is the clear pick, and it was designed for exactly that segment.

The E5-1620 v4 argues for itself on responsiveness and platform bandwidth. Its 3.80 GHz boost clock and eight threads suit lightly threaded or latency-sensitive desktop work, and its 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth is a genuine advantage over the 59.7 GB/s of its rival, relevant for memory-bound tasks. For a single-socket workstation or desktop build where per-thread speed and bandwidth matter more than efficiency, it is the better fit despite losing every benchmark by a hair.

Since neither chip wins by a meaningful margin, the decision reduces to power envelope, memory bandwidth needs, and workload shape. Both are end-of-life parts occupying the same 42nd percentile tier, so neither offers a forward-looking platform.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |

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

| Architecture | Haswell (Haswell-EP) | Broadwell (Broadwell-EP) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Cores / Threads | 6 / 6 | 4 / 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.0 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None recorded | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 52 W | 140 W |

| L3 Cache | 15 MB shared | 10 MB shared |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | 3,400 million |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 246 mm² |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | September 2014 | June 2016 |

| Launch MSRP | $441 | $294 |

| Part Number | SR20BSR21P | SR2P6 |

Identical between the two: Socket 2011-3 compatibility, DDR4 support with ECC, a quad-channel memory bus, PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes, 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, locked multipliers, no integrated graphics, and end-of-life production status.