Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 and Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 are both Haswell-EP server processors built for the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, yet they pursue different design goals. The E5-1650 v3 leans on high clock speeds and an unlocked multiplier, while the E5-2630 v3 counters with two additional physical cores and a larger L3 cache. Benchmark data from Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 shows a remarkably consistent picture: the E5-1650 v3 wins every single test, but by a narrow margin that rarely exceeds 1.6%. This is not a lopsided duel; it is a tight competition where architectural trade-offs nearly cancel out.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The E5-1650 v3 sweeps all six head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are thin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E5-1650 v3 scores 887 against 873 for the E5-2630 v3, a 1.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test tells the same story: 125 versus 123, again a 1.6% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the E5-1650 v3 posts 3696 multicore and 521 single-core, while the E5-2630 v3 manages 3640 and 513 respectively; the deltas are 1.5% and 1.6%. The pattern holds in R23, where the E5-1650 v3 reaches 8800 multicore and 1242 single-core, compared to 8668 and 1223 for the E5-2630 v3, with deltas of 1.5% and 1.6%. Across every workload, the higher-clocked 6-core part edges out the 8-core part, but the differences are small enough that real-world applications would struggle to notice them consistently.

The consistency of the deltaPct values—1.5% or 1.6% in every test—suggests the performance gap is driven by clock frequency rather than any workload-specific behavior. The E5-1650 v3's 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost clocks simply outpace the E5-2630 v3's 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. When both processors are fully loaded, the extra 1.6% from higher clocks compensates for the E5-2630 v3's two additional cores. In single-threaded tests, the gap is identical at 1.6%, reinforcing that per-core speed is the deciding factor. The E5-2630 v3 never comes within striking distance of a win, but it also never falls far behind; its best showing is a 1.5% deficit in R20 and R23 multicore, where its extra cores help close the gap slightly.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-1650 v3 wins outright in every benchmark category, but the nature of its wins matters. In single-core tests—Cinebench R15, R20, and R23—it leads by 1.6% each time, which makes it the better choice for lightly threaded workloads like legacy applications, scripting, or any task that depends on one or two fast threads. Its 3.80 GHz boost clock is the highest available in this comparison, and the unlocked multiplier means users can push it further if the cooling and motherboard allow. For workloads that cannot use more than a few cores, the E5-1650 v3 is the clear pick.

The E5-2630 v3, despite losing every benchmark, still has a structural advantage in core count: 8 cores and 16 threads versus 6 cores and 12 threads. Its multicore deficits are only 1.5–1.6%, which means in heavily threaded applications—video encoding, compile farms, virtualized environments—the two processors perform almost identically, but the E5-2630 v3 does so while drawing far less power. Its 85 W TDP versus 140 W for the E5-1650 v3 is a massive difference, and for dense server racks or always-on workstations, that efficiency can be more valuable than a 1.5% speed edge. The E5-2630 v3 also has a 20 MB shared L3 cache versus 15 MB on the E5-1650 v3, which helps when working sets exceed 15 MB. So, while the E5-1650 v3 wins benchmarks, the E5-2630 v3 wins on operational cost and cache capacity.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Haswell-EP architecture, codenamed Haswell-EP, and are built on Intel's 22 nm process node at the same foundry. Transistor count is identical at 2,600 million, and the die size is the same 356 mm². Both use the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, support DDR4 memory in a quad-channel configuration, and provide PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory is supported on both, and neither has integrated graphics. They are both classified as Server/Workstation parts, released on the same date, and are now end-of-life products.

The key architectural difference lies in the core configuration and cache hierarchy. The E5-1650 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the E5-2630 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. L1 and L2 caches are identical per core at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively, but the L3 cache differs: 15 MB shared on the E5-1650 v3 versus 20 MB shared on the E5-2630 v3. This means the E5-2630 v3 has more cache per core (2.5 MB per core versus 2.5 MB per core on the E5-1650 v3—actually identical per core, but the total is larger). The clock speeds are the other major split: a 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost on the E5-1650 v3 versus 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost on the E5-2630 v3. The E5-1650 v3 also has an unlocked multiplier, which the E5-2630 v3 lacks, allowing overclocking on supported motherboards.

Memory bandwidth differs slightly, with the E5-1650 v3 rated at 68.3 GB/s and the E5-2630 v3 at 59.7 GB/s, despite both using quad-channel DDR4. This is likely a consequence of the higher memory multipliers available on the faster-clocked part. Both processors are end-of-life and were released on the same day, with the E5-2630 v3 carrying a launch MSRP of $667; the E5-1650 v3 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 | Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 |

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

| Cores / Threads | 6 / 12 | 8 / 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 85 W |

| L3 Cache | 15 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $667 |

| Part Number | QFSTSR20J | SR206 |

The only other specification where the two differ is the part number. All other fields—socket, architecture, process node, transistor count, die size, L1/L2 cache, memory type and bus, ECC support, PCIe lanes, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, and release date—are identical between the two.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 wins all single-core tests by 1.6%, scoring 125, 521, and 1242 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 respectively, versus 123, 513, and 1223 for the E5-2630 v3.

Q: Does the 8-core E5-2630 v3 ever beat the 6-core E5-1650 v3 in multicore tests?

A: No. The E5-1650 v3 wins every multicore test, with scores of 887, 3696, and 8800 in R15, R20, and R23, versus 873, 3640, and 8668 for the E5-2630 v3, representing 1.5–1.6% leads.

Q: How do the TDPs compare?

A: The E5-1650 v3 has a TDP of 140 W, while the E5-2630 v3 has a TDP of 85 W. That is a 55 W difference in favor of the E5-2630 v3.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the E5-1650 v3 and the E5-2630 v3 support ECC memory and use quad-channel DDR4.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The E5-2630 v3 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 15 MB on the E5-1650 v3.

Q: Can either CPU be overclocked?

A: The E5-1650 v3 has an unlocked multiplier, meaning it can be overclocked. The E5-2630 v3 has a locked multiplier and cannot be overclocked.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 is the faster processor in every measured workload, with a consistent 1.5–1.6% lead across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests. If raw performance is the only criterion, the E5-1650 v3 is the correct choice. Its higher base and boost clocks—3.50/3.80 GHz versus 2.40/3.20 GHz—deliver a measurable edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, despite having two fewer cores. The unlocked multiplier adds headroom for users willing to tune their systems further. The data shows it ranks at the 49th percentile among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 2545, slightly above the E5-2630 v3's 2507.

However, the E5-2630 v3 is not a poor alternative. Its 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 20 MB L3 cache, make it nearly as fast in multicore tests—within 1.5%—while consuming 55 W less power. In a server environment where hundreds of CPUs run 24/7, that power difference translates to significant operational savings. The E5-2630 v3 also holds its own in the broader market, ranking at the same 49th percentile with an average score of 2507. It is the safer choice for thread-heavy workloads that can use 16 threads, and its lower TDP makes it easier to cool in dense chassis.

Choose the E5-1650 v3 if you need the fastest possible per-core performance, plan to overclock, or run lightly threaded applications where a 1.6% single-core advantage matters. Choose the E5-2630 v3 if you prioritize power efficiency, need the extra cache for large working sets, or run heavily threaded workloads where the performance gap is negligible and the 85 W TDP is a decisive factor. Both processors are end-of-life, but the E5-2630 v3's launch MSRP of $667 provides a reference point for its original positioning. For most builders, the E5-1650 v3's benchmark sweep makes it the default recommendation, but the E5-2630 v3's efficiency and core count make it a compelling counterpoint.