Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 across all six Cinebench comparisons. The margins are narrow, but they are consistent, which suggests the E5-1630 v4 holds a small but reliable edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the E5-1630 v4 scores 651 against the E5-2608L v3’s 637, a 2.2% advantage. That is the biggest delta in the entire comparison.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, though the differences are smaller. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the E5-1630 v4 posts 91 versus 90, a 1.1% lead. The R20 and R23 single-core tests both show a 2.1% advantage for the E5-1630 v4, with scores of 383 against 375 and 912 against 893 respectively. The multi-core results in R20 and R23 mirror that same 2.1% gap, with the E5-1630 v4 hitting 2714 and 6464 while the E5-2608L v3 reaches 2658 and 6329.

What is notable is that the E5-2608L v3 has more physical cores, six versus four, yet it still loses every multi-core test. That indicates the E5-1630 v4’s higher clock speeds and newer architecture more than compensate for the two-core deficit. The E5-2608L v3 does benefit from a larger shared L3 cache, 15 MB versus 10 MB, but that does not translate into a benchmark win anywhere.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture. The E5-1630 v4 sits at 1869, while the E5-2608L v3 is at 1830. Both processors land in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, so they are peers in overall standing, but the E5-1630 v4 is consistently ahead in every individual test. The nearest rivals for the E5-1630 v4 include the Intel Core i3-9350K at 1867 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 at 1879 (0.5% ahead), showing it is squarely in a competitive mid-range cluster. The E5-2608L v3, meanwhile, matches exactly with the Intel Xeon D-1537 at 1830, and sits just 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 4600U at 1832.

FAQ

Q: Does the E5-1630 v4 win in every benchmark comparison?

A: Yes. The head-to-head data lists six tests, and the E5-1630 v4 wins all six. The deltas range from 1.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core to 2.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: Why does the E5-2608L v3 lose multi-core tests despite having more cores?

A: The E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, but its base clock is 2.00 GHz with no boost clock listed. The E5-1630 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost of 4.00 GHz. Higher clock speeds and hyper-threading allow the E5-1630 v4 to overcome the core deficit.

Q: What is the single-core score difference in Cinebench R23?

A: The E5-1630 v4 scores 912, and the E5-2608L v3 scores 893. That is a 2.1% advantage for the E5-1630 v4.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The E5-1630 v4 has an average score of 1869, nearly identical to the Intel Core i3-9350K at 1867 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i5-1035G4 at 1861 (0.4% behind). The E5-2608L v3 matches the Intel Xeon D-1537 at 1830 exactly and is 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 4600U at 1832.

Q: Which CPU has a higher launch MSRP?

A: The E5-2608L v3 has a launch MSRP of $441, while the E5-1630 v4 has a launch MSRP of $406.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-1630 v4 wins every benchmark category in this comparison, so the use-case split is straightforward. If you are looking at raw Cinebench performance, the E5-1630 v4 is the only choice. It leads in both multi-core and single-core tests, with the multi-core lead being slightly larger in R15 (2.2%) than in R20 and R23 (2.1% each). The single-core lead is 1.1% in R15 and 2.1% in R20 and R23.

The E5-2608L v3 does not have a single benchmark win, but it has structural advantages that matter outside of these tests. It offers six physical cores, which could help in workloads that scale poorly with hyper-threading, and it has 50% more shared L3 cache (15 MB versus 10 MB). Its TDP is dramatically lower at 52 watts versus 140 watts, which makes it a more appropriate fit for dense server environments where heat and power are constrained. The E5-1630 v4 is a desktop segment part, while the E5-2608L v3 is explicitly a server/workstation part, so the intended operating context differs.

For a user prioritizing single-thread response or lightly threaded applications, the E5-1630 v4’s clock speed advantage is decisive. For a user running many parallel, cache-sensitive tasks in a low-power chassis, the E5-2608L v3’s extra cores and larger cache might be more attractive, even if the Cinebench numbers do not reflect a win.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs share the same socket (Intel Socket 2011-3), memory type (DDR4), memory bus (quad-channel), ECC support, PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 40 lanes from the CPU), and both lack integrated graphics. They are both locked multipliers and end-of-life parts.

The differences are substantial. The E5-1630 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks differ wildly: 3.70 GHz for the E5-1630 v4 versus 2.00 GHz for the E5-2608L v3. The E5-1630 v4 also has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the E5-2608L v3 has no boost clock listed. TDP is another major split: 140 watts for the E5-1630 v4, 52 watts for the E5-2608L v3.

Memory bandwidth favors the E5-1630 v4 at 76.8 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s for the E5-2608L v3. Market segment differs as well: the E5-1630 v4 is marked as Desktop, the E5-2608L v3 as Server/Workstation. Release dates are also different, with the E5-2608L v3 appearing in September 2014 and the E5-1630 v4 in June 2016. The launch MSRP is $406 for the E5-1630 v4 and $441 for the E5-2608L v3. Part numbers are SR2PF for the E5-1630 v4 and SR20BSR21P for the E5-2608L v3.

Architecture Differences

The E5-1630 v4 is built on the Broadwell microarchitecture, specifically Broadwell-EP, using a 14 nm process node. The E5-2608L v3 is Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process. The newer 14 nm node gives the E5-1630 v4 a transistor density advantage even though both are Intel foundry parts. Transistor counts reflect this: the E5-1630 v4 uses 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die, while the E5-2608L v3 uses 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die.

Cache hierarchies are per-core identical for L1 and L2 (64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively), but the shared L3 differs. The E5-1630 v4 has 10 MB shared L3, while the E5-2608L v3 has 15 MB shared L3. The E5-2608L v3’s larger cache is likely a response to having more physical cores, but the E5-1630 v4’s higher clocks and hyper-threading help it win anyway.

The E5-1630 v4 supports 8 threads from 4 cores, meaning it has hyper-threading enabled. The E5-2608L v3 has 6 threads from 6 cores, so it does not use hyper-threading. This is a key architectural difference that explains why the E5-1630 v4 can outperform a six-core part in multi-threaded Cinebench runs. The boost clock on the E5-1630 v4 also suggests it can sustain higher all-core frequencies under load, while the E5-2608L v3 appears to run at a fixed 2.00 GHz.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 in every recorded Cinebench test. If your priority is raw compute performance in these workloads, the E5-1630 v4 is the correct pick. It wins by 2.2% in multi-core R15, 2.1% in multi-core R20 and R23, and 1.1% to 2.1% in single-core tests. Its higher clocks, 3.70 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost, plus 8 threads, give it a decisive edge.

The E5-2608L v3 is not without merit, but its merits are outside the benchmark suite. It has 6 cores, a 15 MB L3 cache, and a 52 watt TDP. That makes it a better candidate for power-limited server racks or workloads that favor many physical cores over high frequency. It also has a higher launch MSRP at $441, so you are not paying more for a performance win.

The E5-1630 v4 is the choice for desktop-oriented tasks, single-threaded responsiveness, and any application that benefits from hyper-threading. The E5-2608L v3 is the choice for low-power, multi-core server workloads where cache capacity and core count matter more than clock speed. Both sit at the 42nd percentile in the database, so neither is a high-flying part, but within this head-to-head, the E5-1630 v4 is clearly the faster silicon.