Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data places the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 in every benchmark test captured in the database. Across six Cinebench workloads, the E5-1630 v3 records a clean sweep, with the closest margin appearing in single-core tests and the largest in multi-core rendering.

In Cinebench R15, the E5-1630 v3 scores 635 points in the multi-core test against 617 points for the E5-2637 v3, a delta of 2.9%. The single-core result shows a smaller gap: 89 points versus 87 points, a 2.3% advantage for the E5-1630 v3. These differences, while modest in absolute terms, are consistent across all recorded Cinebench versions.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the E5-1630 v3 delivers 2647 points in multi-core and 373 points in single-core. The E5-2637 v3 trails with 2574 points and 363 points respectively. The delta here is 2.8% for both tests, indicating that the performance gap widens slightly as the workload scales. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the E5-1630 v3 posts 6303 points multi-core and 889 points single-core, against 6130 and 865 for the E5-2637 v3. The delta in both R23 tests is 2.8%.

The win tally from the head-to-head comparison is 6 for the E5-1630 v3 and 0 for the E5-2637 v3. No test in the database shows the E5-2637 v3 taking the lead. The margins are narrow, ranging from 2.3% to 2.9%, but they are uniform across all six measurements. This suggests a consistent underlying advantage for the E5-1630 v3 rather than a workload-specific artifact.

Looking at the broader benchmark context, the E5-1630 v3 holds an average benchmark score of 1823 across all recorded tests, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The E5-2637 v3 averages 1773, sitting in the 41st percentile. The difference in average score is 50 points, roughly 2.8%, which aligns with the head-to-head deltas. The nearest rivals for the E5-1630 v3 include the Intel Core i7-4790S with an average score of 1827 (0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 at 1817 (0.3% lower), and both the Intel Xeon D-1537 and Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 at 1830 (0.4% lower). For the E5-2637 v3, the nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 at 1777 (0.2% higher), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 at 1778 (0.3% higher), the Intel Core i7-4870HQ at 1769 (0.2% lower), and the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE at 1766 (0.4% lower).

The practical interpretation of these scores is that the E5-1630 v3 offers a measurable, though not dramatic, edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The 2.8% to 2.9% deltas in multi-core tests are consistent with a processor that sustains slightly higher clocks under load. The single-core deltas, at 2.3% to 2.8%, reinforce that the advantage is not purely a multi-core phenomenon; it appears even in lightly threaded tasks.

# The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 is the faster processor in every measured category. The database shows a 6-0 win record in the head-to-head comparison, with no test where the E5-2637 v3 outperforms it. The margins are small, typically around 2.8%, but they are consistent across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core modes.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark performance, the E5-1630 v3 is the clear choice. Its average benchmark score of 1823 exceeds the E5-2637 v3's 1773 by roughly 2.8%, and its percentile ranking of 42 versus 41 confirms a slightly better standing in the overall CPU distribution. The E5-1630 v3 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $996, though pricing is not a factor in benchmark analysis.

The E5-2637 v3, however, is not without merit in specific scenarios. Both processors share the same core count, thread count, socket, and memory architecture. The E5-2637 v3 offers a larger L3 cache of 15 MB shared, compared to 10 MB for the E5-1630 v3. This additional cache could benefit workloads that exhibit high cache reuse, but the recorded Cinebench scores do not reflect any such advantage. In fact, the E5-2637 v3 trails in every recorded test, suggesting that its clock deficit outweighs its cache advantage in these specific benchmarks.

The choice between the two depends on what the data shows. If the workload is represented by Cinebench, the E5-1630 v3 wins outright. If the workload involves cache-sensitive patterns not captured in these benchmarks, the E5-2637 v3's larger L3 cache might narrow the gap, but no recorded data supports that conclusion. The database records no test where the E5-2637 v3 leads, so for any of the six measured workloads, the E5-1630 v3 is the recommended pick.

For server or workstation deployments where the absolute fastest single-thread and multi-thread Cinebench scores matter, the E5-1630 v3 is the superior part. For systems where the E5-2637 v3's specific part number (SR202) or its higher launch MSRP is a consideration, the data still points to the E5-1630 v3 as the better performer.

# FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 scores 6303 points, while the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 scores 6130 points. The E5-1630 v3 leads by 2.8%.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 beats the E5-1630 v3?

A: In the recorded head-to-head data, the E5-2637 v3 wins 0 out of 6 tests. The E5-1630 v3 wins all six, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core modes.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two?

A: The E5-1630 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1823, while the E5-2637 v3 averages 1773. The difference is 50 points, approximately 2.8% in favor of the E5-1630 v3.

Q: What is the single-core score difference in Cinebench R20?

A: The E5-1630 v3 scores 373 points, and the E5-2637 v3 scores 363 points, a delta of 2.8% favoring the E5-1630 v3.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The E5-2637 v3 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-1630 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the percentile rankings for each processor?

A: The E5-1630 v3 ranks in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs, and the E5-2637 v3 ranks in the 41st percentile.

# Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields, all of which are recorded in the database.

The base clock of the E5-1630 v3 is 3.70 GHz, while the E5-2637 v3 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz. The boost clock follows the same pattern: 3.80 GHz for the E5-1630 v3 and 3.70 GHz for the E5-2637 v3. In both cases, the E5-1630 v3 runs 0.20 GHz faster at the base and 0.10 GHz faster at boost.

Thermal design power differs slightly. The E5-1630 v3 has a TDP of 140 watts, whereas the E5-2637 v3 is rated at 135 watts. This 5-watt difference is minor but places the E5-1630 v3 at a marginally higher thermal envelope.

The shared L3 cache is a notable difference. The E5-1630 v3 offers 10 MB, while the E5-2637 v3 offers 15 MB. Both use 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and both have 4 cores and 8 threads.

The launch MSRP field is populated only for the E5-2637 v3, with a recorded value of $996. The E5-1630 v3 has no launch MSRP entry in the database.

The part numbers differ: the E5-1630 v3 is listed as QFSVSR20L, and the E5-2637 v3 is listed as SR202.

All other specification fields are identical between the two. Both use the Intel Socket 2011-3, both are built on the Haswell-EP architecture with a 22 nm process node from Intel, and both have 2,600 million transistors and a die size of 356 mm². Memory support is DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe is Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). Both have no integrated graphics, target the server/workstation market segment, and are marked as end-of-life. The release date is the same for both: September 7, 2014. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

# Architecture Differences

At the architectural level, both processors belong to the same Haswell generation and share the Haswell-EP codename. The process node is 22 nm, the foundry is Intel, and both have identical transistor counts of 2,600 million and die sizes of 356 mm². The core and thread configuration is also identical: 4 cores and 8 threads, with L1 cache at 64 KB per core and L2 cache at 256 KB per core.

The only architectural difference recorded in the database is the shared L3 cache size. The E5-1630 v3 carries 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-2637 v3 carries 15 MB. This 5 MB difference is the sole distinguishing feature in the cache hierarchy.

Both processors support DDR4 memory with a quad-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on both. The PCIe implementation is identical as well: Gen 3 with 40 lanes available from the CPU. Neither processor includes integrated graphics, which is expected for the server/workstation segment.

The base and boost clock differences are not architectural per se, but they interact with the architecture to produce the observed benchmark results. The E5-1630 v3 runs at a base clock of 3.70 GHz and boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the E5-2637 v3 runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The TDP difference, 140 watts versus 135 watts, reflects the higher clocks of the E5-1630 v3, though both parts remain within the same power class.

The larger L3 cache on the E5-2637 v3 does not translate into a performance advantage in any recorded benchmark. In the six Cinebench tests, the E5-1630 v3 leads consistently, which indicates that the clock advantage of the E5-1630 v3 outweighs the cache advantage of the E5-2637 v3 for these workloads. For workloads that are highly cache-sensitive, the 15 MB L3 cache on the E5-2637 v3 could theoretically provide a benefit, but no such data exists in the database to confirm this.

Both processors share the same memory bandwidth, PCIe lane count, and socket, which means they are drop-in compatible at the platform level. The architectural differences are limited to the L3 cache size and the clock/TDP envelope. The recorded benchmark data shows that the combination of higher clocks and smaller cache on the E5-1630 v3 yields better Cinebench scores across the board. The E5-2637 v3's larger cache remains its only recorded architectural advantage, and it does not manifest in any of the six head-to-head measurements.