Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents an unusual outcome: the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, yet the margins are remarkably narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2608L v3 scores 637 against 635 for the E5-1630 v3, a delta of just 0.3%. The single-core R15 test shows a slightly larger gap of 1.1%, with scores of 90 and 89 respectively.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The E5-2608L v3 posts 2658 in multi-core versus 2647 for the E5-1630 v3, a 0.4% advantage. In single-core R20, the scores are 375 and 373, again a 0.5% edge for the E5-2608L v3. The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend: 6329 against 6303 in multi-core (0.4% delta) and 893 versus 889 in single-core (0.4% delta).

What does this mean? The E5-2608L v3's largest winning margin is 1.1% in R15 single-core — a negligible difference in real-world terms. The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture: the E5-2608L v3 averages 1830, while the E5-1630 v3 averages 1823, a gap of only 0.4%. Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy essentially the same performance tier.

The data suggests these two chips are near-identical in benchmark output despite their architectural differences. The E5-2608L v3's 6 cores and 6 threads versus the E5-1630 v3's 4 cores and 8 threads produce nearly equivalent results across all tested workloads. This raises a question: does the extra core count of the E5-2608L v3 compensate for the E5-1630 v3's higher clock speeds, or are these benchmarks simply not sensitive enough to distinguish them?

# Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Haswell-EP architecture, built on Intel's 22 nm process node with 2,600 million transistors and a die size of 356 mm². They use the same Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, support DDR4 memory with quad-channel buses, and offer PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are locked multipliers.

The core configuration differs significantly. The E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the E5-1630 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This means the E5-1630 v3 supports Hyper-Threading, effectively giving it 8 logical processors against the E5-2608L v3's 6. The E5-2608L v3 operates at a base clock of 2000 MHz with no boost clock listed, while the E5-1630 v3 runs at 3700 MHz base and 3800 MHz boost — a substantial clock advantage of 1700-1800 MHz.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the E5-2608L v3 carries 15 MB of shared L3 cache versus 10 MB for the E5-1630 v3. That 5 MB difference in L3 could matter in workloads with large working sets.

Memory bandwidth shows a notable discrepancy: the E5-2608L v3 achieves 59.7 GB/s, while the E5-1630 v3 reaches 68.3 GB/s — a 14.4% advantage for the E5-1630 v3 despite identical memory bus architecture. This suggests the higher clock speeds enable better memory throughput.

Thermal design power tells a stark story: the E5-2608L v3 draws just 52 watts, while the E5-1630 v3 consumes 140 watts. That is a 2.7x difference in TDP, making the E5-2608L v3 dramatically more power-efficient. Both processors were released on the same date, share the Haswell-EP generation, and are now end-of-life products.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the E5-1630 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The E5-1630 v3 benefits from Hyper-Threading, giving it more logical threads despite fewer physical cores.

Q: How do their clock speeds compare?

A: The E5-2608L v3 runs at a 2000 MHz base clock with no boost clock specified. The E5-1630 v3 runs at 3700 MHz base and boosts to 3800 MHz — a substantial clock advantage for the E5-1630 v3.

Q: What is the TDP difference between them?

A: The E5-2608L v3 has a TDP of 52 watts, while the E5-1630 v3 has a TDP of 140 watts. The E5-2608L v3 is significantly more power-efficient, consuming roughly one-third the power of the E5-1630 v3.

Q: Do they support the same memory and PCIe features?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 with quad-channel memory buses and PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. However, memory bandwidth differs: the E5-2608L v3 achieves 59.7 GB/s, while the E5-1630 v3 achieves 68.3 GB/s.

Q: Which processor wins in benchmark performance?

A: The E5-2608L v3 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but by very narrow margins. The largest delta is 1.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and most deltas are 0.3-0.5%.

Q: How do their cache sizes differ?

A: Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The E5-2608L v3 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-1630 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache — a 5 MB advantage for the E5-2608L v3.

# The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: these two processors deliver virtually identical performance. The E5-2608L v3 wins every head-to-head test, but the margins are so small that they fall within noise territory. The average benchmark score difference is just 7 points out of roughly 1830 — a 0.4% gap.

The decision between them should rest on factors other than raw benchmark output. The E5-2608L v3 offers 6 physical cores versus 4, a larger 15 MB L3 cache versus 10 MB, and dramatically lower power consumption at 52 watts versus 140 watts. The E5-1630 v3 counters with much higher clock speeds (3700-3800 MHz versus 2000 MHz) and greater memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s).

For workloads that scale with core count and cache capacity, the E5-2608L v3 appears better suited. For workloads that favor clock speed and memory throughput, the E5-1630 v3 may hold advantages that the Cinebench suite does not fully capture. The 42nd percentile ranking for both chips confirms they sit in the same performance class among all CPUs.

The E5-2608L v3's 52-watt TDP is arguably its most compelling feature — it achieves parity with a 140-watt part while consuming less than half the power. This could translate to lower cooling requirements and reduced operational costs in server environments, though the data does not directly measure these factors.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 | Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 6 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 3700 MHz |

| Boost Clock | Not specified | 3800 MHz |

| TDP | 52 W | 140 W |

| L3 Cache | 15 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 68.3 GB/s |

| Launch MSRP | $441 | Not specified |

Both processors share identical specifications in several areas: 22 nm process node, 2,600 million transistors, 356 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, DDR4 memory support, quad-channel memory bus, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, no integrated graphics, Intel Socket 2011-3, Haswell-EP architecture, lock multipliers, and end-of-life production status.

# Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 strengths:

• Wins all six benchmark comparisons, including both multi-core and single-core tests across R15, R20, and R23
• Offers 2 additional physical cores (6 versus 4) for workloads that scale with core count
• Provides 50% more shared L3 cache (15 MB versus 10 MB), beneficial for data-intensive workloads
• Operates at 52 watts TDP versus 140 watts — a 2.7x power efficiency advantage
• Has a launch MSRP of $441, though the E5-1630 v3's pricing is not specified in the data

Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 strengths:

• Runs at 3700-3800 MHz versus 2000 MHz for the E5-2608L v3 — a significant clock speed advantage
• Supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading versus 6 threads without it
• Achieves 14.4% higher memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s)
• Matches the E5-2608L v3 in memory support (DDR4, quad-channel), PCIe lanes (Gen 3, 40), and ECC capability

The use-case split is clear from the specification data. The E5-2608L v3 suits power-constrained environments where its 52-watt TDP and additional cores provide tangible benefits. The E5-1630 v3 targets workloads that demand high per-core performance and memory throughput, where its clock speed and bandwidth advantages could outweigh the benchmark parity shown here.