Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 and the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 are both end-of-life server-class processors built for the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, yet they approach their workloads from opposite directions. The E5-1620 v4 is a 4-core, 8-thread Broadwell part with a 3.50 GHz base clock and a 3.80 GHz boost, while the E5-4610 v3 offers 10 cores and 20 threads on the older Haswell architecture but runs at a dramatically lower base clock. The benchmark data shows a surprisingly consistent, though narrow, victory for the smaller chip across every single test, a result that challenges the assumption that more cores always win.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The E5-1620 v4 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are tight. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-1620 v4 scores 627 against the E5-4610 v3’s 619, a 1.3% lead. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in percentage terms, with the E5-1620 v4 posting 88 versus 87, a 1.1% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the E5-1620 v4 scores 2616 multi-core and 369 single-core, beating the E5-4610 v3’s 2580 and 364 by 1.4% in both cases. The largest margin is also 1.4%, seen in Cinebench R23 multi-core (6230 vs 6144) and R23 single-core (879 vs 867).

What is revealing is not the size of the wins but their consistency across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. A 10-core, 20-thread processor losing multi-core tests to a 4-core, 8-thread part points to the E5-4610 v3’s severe clock disadvantage. The E5-4610 v3 has a base clock of 1700.00 MHz, which is less than half of the E5-1620 v4’s 3.50 GHz. Even with 2.5 times the cores and threads, the E5-4610 v3 cannot overcome that frequency deficit in these particular Cinebench runs. The delta percentages never exceed 1.4%, meaning the two parts are effectively in the same performance tier, but the direction of every result is unambiguous.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the E5-1620 v4 sits at 1802, while the E5-4610 v3 is slightly lower at 1777. This places the E5-1620 v4 in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs, one point above the E5-4610 v3’s 41st percentile. The nearest rivals for the E5-1620 v4 include the Intel Core i3-9100 (avg score 1806, delta -0.2%) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (1810, -0.4%), showing that this Xeon is squarely in modern desktop-class performance territory. The E5-4610 v3’s nearest rivals are similarly positioned, with the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 at 1778 (-0.1%) and the Intel Core i7-4870HQ at 1769 (0.4%). Both chips are effectively indistinguishable from their nearest competitors, but the E5-1620 v4 holds a slight edge over its own rival group.

Where Each One Wins

The data is clear: the E5-1620 v4 wins in every benchmark category, but the reasons for choosing one over the other go beyond raw Cinebench scores. The E5-1620 v4’s wins come from its high clock speeds and newer architecture, which benefit both single-core responsiveness and lightly-threaded tasks. Its 3.80 GHz boost clock, though not directly benchmarked here, is a strong indicator of its ability to handle bursty workflows. In contrast, the E5-4610 v3’s only theoretical advantage lies in its core count, but the benchmark results show that advantage never materializes in these tests.

For workloads that are latency-sensitive or depend on a single fast thread, the E5-1620 v4 is the clear choice. Its single-core scores of 88 (R15), 369 (R20), and 879 (R23) all outpace the E5-4610 v3’s 87, 364, and 867. The differences are small, but they are consistent, and in applications where every point of single-core performance counts, the E5-1620 v4 will feel snappier. The E5-4610 v3, despite its 10-core count, has no benchmark win to claim. Its multi-core scores are lower across the board, meaning that even in heavily threaded rendering tasks, the E5-1620 v4 matches or exceeds it.

The only scenario where the E5-4610 v3 might be preferable is one where the workload scales perfectly with core count and is not clock-bound. However, the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, which is heavily multi-threaded, shows the E5-1620 v4 winning 6230 to 6144. That suggests the E5-4610 v3’s cores are not being utilized effectively enough to overcome the clock gap. In practical terms, the E5-1620 v4 is the better choice for almost any task that fits within its 4-core/8-thread envelope, while the E5-4610 v3 offers no measured advantage in return for its larger core count.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing nodes. The E5-1620 v4 is built on Broadwell-EP using a 14 nm process, with a die size of 246 mm² and 3,400 million transistors. The E5-4610 v3 is Haswell-EP on a 22 nm process, with a larger die of 356 mm² but fewer transistors at 2,600 million. The smaller, denser Broadwell node gives the E5-1620 v4 a transistor density advantage, which helps explain its higher clock speeds and better per-core efficiency. The E5-4610 v3’s larger die on an older node means more physical space but less performance per transistor.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The E5-1620 v4 has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 10 MB of shared L3 cache. The E5-4610 v3 has the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes, but its shared L3 cache jumps to 25 MB. That extra 15 MB of L3 is a substantial amount of on-die memory, yet it does not translate into a benchmark win for the E5-4610 v3. This suggests that the larger cache is not enough to compensate for the lower clock speed in these tests. Both processors support DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus, but the E5-1620 v4 has a higher memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s versus the E5-4610 v3’s 51.2 GB/s.

Both chips have the same PCIe Gen 3 implementation with 40 lanes, and both support ECC memory. The E5-1620 v4 is classified as a Desktop segment part, while the E5-4610 v3 is a Server/Workstation part. Their launch dates are about a year apart, with the E5-4610 v3 releasing on 2015-05-31 and the E5-1620 v4 on 2016-06-19. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are end-of-life. The E5-1620 v4’s part number is SR2P6, while the E5-4610 v3’s is SR22S.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the superior processor. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, holds a higher average benchmark score (1802 vs 1777), and lands in a higher percentile (42 vs 41). The E5-1620 v4 also has a lower launch MSRP of $294 compared to the E5-4610 v3’s $1219, though pricing should not be the deciding factor given both are end-of-life. The data shows that the E5-1620 v4’s higher clock speeds and newer 14 nm architecture overcome the E5-4610 v3’s 2.5x core and thread advantage.

The E5-4610 v3 is not without merit if you specifically need 10 cores and 20 threads for a particular application, but the benchmark results do not show any scenario where that core advantage yields a win. Every multi-core test goes to the E5-1620 v4, which means the E5-4610 v3’s cores are effectively slower in aggregate. For a builder choosing between these two on the same socket platform, the E5-1620 v4 is the safer pick for general productivity, single-threaded tasks, and even multi-threaded rendering based on these results. The E5-4610 v3 might be considered only if a specific software workload is known to scale flawlessly across 20 threads and is insensitive to memory bandwidth, but the data does not support that choice for Cinebench-style workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the base clock of the E5-4610 v3?

A: The E5-4610 v3 has a base clock of 1700.00 MHz, which is significantly lower than the E5-1620 v4’s 3.50 GHz base clock.

Q: Does the E5-4610 v3 ever beat the E5-1620 v4 in any benchmark?

A: No. The E5-1620 v4 wins all six head-to-head benchmark tests, including both single-core and multi-core Cinebench R15, R20, and R23.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The E5-4610 v3 has 25 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-1620 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the process node for each chip?

A: The E5-1620 v4 is built on a 14 nm process, while the E5-4610 v3 uses a 22 nm process.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Both the E5-1620 v4 and the E5-4610 v3 support ECC memory, and both use DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 | Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 10 |

| Threads | 8 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 1700.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | None |

| TDP | 140 W | 105 W |

| Architecture | Broadwell | Haswell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

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

| Die Size | 246 mm² | 356 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 25 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 51.2 GB/s |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2016-06-19 | 2015-05-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $294 | $1219 |

| Part Number | SR2P6 | SR22S |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 1802 | 1777 |

| Percentile | 42 | 41 |