Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 wins every single recorded comparison. Out of six head-to-head tests, the v4 takes all six, with the v3 securing zero wins. This is not a close contest with mixed results; it is a clean sweep across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

The v4 leads in multi-core scenarios by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the v4 scores 651 against the v3's 635, a 2.5% advantage. That gap persists in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the v4 posts 2714 versus 2647, again a 2.5% edge. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the same pattern: 6464 for the v4, 6303 for the v3, with the identical 2.5% delta.

Single-core performance tells the same story, though the margins are slightly tighter in raw points. The v4 leads in Cinebench R15 single-core with 91 versus 89, a 2.2% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the v4 scores 383 against 373, a 2.6% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 912 for the v4 and 889 for the v3, a 2.5% edge.

There is no workload category in the database where the v3 comes out ahead. The v4's advantage is uniform, meaning users who prioritize either single-threaded responsiveness or multi-threaded rendering will see the same relative outcome. The v3 does not win any segment, so the use-case split is simple: the v4 is the better choice for every benchmark recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same core and thread counts, both offering 4 cores and 8 threads, and both run on the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. The differences begin with the underlying architecture. The v3 uses the Haswell-EP design on a 22 nm process node, while the v4 moves to Broadwell-EP on a 14 nm node. This node shrink is substantial, reducing the die size from 356 mm² to 246 mm², even as transistor count rises from 2,600 million to 3,400 million.

Clock speeds also differ. Both chips have a 3.70 GHz base clock, but the v4 boosts higher at 4.00 GHz versus the v3's 3.80 GHz. That 0.20 GHz boost advantage is the most likely contributor to the v4's consistent benchmark lead, especially in single-core tests where boost clocks matter most.

Cache configurations are identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 10 MB shared L3. Memory support is also the same on paper, with both supporting DDR4 over a quad-channel bus. However, the recorded memory bandwidth differs, with the v3 rated at 68.3 GB/s and the v4 at 76.8 GB/s. The v4's higher bandwidth aligns with its newer architecture and process node.

PCIe support is unchanged, with both offering Gen 3 and 40 lanes from the CPU. Neither chip includes integrated graphics. The v3 is classified as a Server/Workstation part, while the v4 is listed as a Desktop segment product, though both share the same socket and TDP of 140 watts. The v4 also carries a launch MSRP of $406, while the v3 has no recorded launch price.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the v3 boosts to 3.80 GHz. Both have the same 3.70 GHz base clock.

Q: Do these CPUs have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both the v3 and v4 have 4 cores and 8 threads, making them identical in core and thread count.

Q: What is the L3 cache size on each processor?

A: Both processors share 10 MB of L3 cache, with 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core.

Q: How much faster is the v4 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The v4 scores 6464, which is 2.5% higher than the v3's 6303 in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test.

Q: Is the v4 a smaller chip despite having more transistors?

A: Yes, the v4 has a 246 mm² die with 3,400 million transistors on a 14 nm node, while the v3 has a 356 mm² die with 2,600 million transistors on a 22 nm node.

Q: Which processor supports higher memory bandwidth?

A: The v4 is rated for 76.8 GB/s, while the v3 is rated for 68.3 GB/s. Both use DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specification fields, all of which favor the v4:

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 | Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 |

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

| Architecture | Haswell-EP | Broadwell-EP |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

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

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 246 mm² |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.00 GHz |

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2014-09-07 | 2016-06-19 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $406 |

Fields that remain identical include base clock (3.70 GHz), TDP (140 watts), socket (Intel Socket 2011-3), cores (4), threads (8), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), L3 cache (10 MB shared), memory support (DDR4), memory bus (quad-channel), ECC support (true), PCIe (Gen 3, 40 lanes), integrated graphics (none), multiplier unlock (false), and production status (end-of-life).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The v4 wins every benchmark in the database, and the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the v4 scores 651 against 635 for the v3, a 2.5% delta. The single-core R15 result is 91 versus 89, a 2.2% edge for the v4. This is the smallest percentage lead in any test, reflecting the fact that both chips share the same base clock and only differ by 0.20 GHz in boost.

Cinebench R20 shows the same pattern. Multi-core gives the v4 a 2714 score versus 2647, a 2.5% advantage. Single-core gives 383 versus 373, a 2.6% lead. That 2.6% is the largest delta recorded across all six tests, a marginal but measurable improvement in the v4's favor.

Cinebench R23 closes out the comparison with the v4 at 6464 multi-core against 6303, a 2.5% lead, and 912 single-core against 889, also a 2.5% lead. The consistency of these deltas, all hovering between 2.2% and 2.6%, indicates that the v4's advantage is systemic rather than workload-specific. The higher boost clock and newer architecture deliver a uniform uplift across rendering tasks.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The v4 has an average score of 1869, while the v3 averages 1823. That is a 46-point gap, or roughly 2.5%, which aligns perfectly with the head-to-head results. Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile against all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same performance tier relative to the wider market.

The Verdict

The data supports a single conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests with deltas ranging from 2.2% to 2.6%. There is no scenario in the database where the v3 outperforms the v4, so any user choosing between these two should select the v4, assuming both are available and compatible with the same Intel Socket 2011-3 platform.

The v4's advantages are rooted in its architecture. The 14 nm Broadwell-EP design packs 3,400 million transistors into a 246 mm² die, compared to the v3's 22 nm Haswell-EP with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. That node shrink enables a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz versus 3.80 GHz, and memory bandwidth improves from 68.3 GB/s to 76.8 GB/s. These are the measurable differences that explain the benchmark results.

The v3 is not a poor processor in absolute terms. Its average score of 1823 places it near rivals like the Intel Core i7-4790S at 1827 and the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 at 1817, with deltas of -0.2% and 0.3% respectively. The v4, meanwhile, sits alongside the Intel Core i3-9350K at 1867 and the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 at 1879, with deltas of 0.1% and -0.5%. Both chips occupy the same percentile rank of 42, so neither is a standout in the broader CPU landscape.

The verdict is straightforward: the v4 wins on every recorded metric, and the margins are consistent enough to be considered reliable. Users who need the extra 2.5% in multi-core rendering or single-core responsiveness should choose the v4. Users constrained to the v3, perhaps due to existing platform availability, will still get performance comparable to its rival tier, but they will be leaving a small, uniform advantage on the table. The v4 is the better part, and the benchmark database shows no reason to pick the v3.