Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 and the Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 are both Haswell-EP server processors built on the 22 nm process node, sharing the same Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. Despite their architectural kinship, the two chips are configured very differently: the E5-1680 v3 emphasizes clock speed with 8 cores and 16 threads running at a 3.20 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, while the E5-2676 v3 prioritizes core count with 12 cores and 24 threads at a 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear performance hierarchy between them.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent. The E5-1680 v3 wins all six Cinebench comparisons, and every single margin is exactly 3.2%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E5-1680 v3 scores 1137 against 1102 for the E5-2676 v3. The R15 single-core test shows 160 versus 155. In Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 4741 against 4592, and the single-core result is 669 versus 648. The R23 tests follow the same pattern: 11289 versus 10935 in multicore, and 1593 versus 1543 in single-core.

The uniformity of the 3.2% margin across every test is a strong signal. It indicates that the performance difference is driven by the clock speed gap rather than by workload-specific scaling behavior. The E5-1680 v3's 3.80 GHz boost clock is substantially higher than the E5-2676 v3's 3.00 GHz boost, and that advantage carries through both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. Even in multicore tests, where the E5-2676 v3 can draw on 12 cores and 24 threads, the E5-1680 v3's 8 cores and 16 threads still produce higher scores.

The average benchmark scores confirm the head-to-head results. The E5-1680 v3 records an average score of 3265, while the E5-2676 v3 averages 3163. Both processors sit at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, which places them in the same general performance tier despite the E5-1680 v3's consistent advantage.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The E5-1680 v3's average score of 3265 is essentially identical to the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4, which scores 3264 with a 0% difference. The AMD Ryzen Embedded V2516 and the Intel Core i3-12100T each score 3277, putting them 0.4% ahead of the E5-1680 v3. The Intel Xeon E-2374G scores 3278, also 0.4% ahead. The E5-2676 v3, with its 3163 average, is closely matched with the AMD Ryzen 5 5560U at 3162, a 0% difference. The AMD Ryzen 3 5300GE at 3160 is 0.1% behind the E5-2676 v3, the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U at 3159 is 0.1% behind, and the Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 at 3154 is 0.3% behind.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-1680 v3 wins every recorded benchmark. There is no test in the database where the E5-2676 v3 comes out ahead. The E5-1680 v3's advantage is most pronounced in single-core tests, where its higher boost clock delivers a 3.2% edge in each Cinebench single-core test. In multicore tests, the E5-2676 v3's additional cores narrow the gap but do not close it. The multicore margins remain at 3.2%, which means the extra 4 cores and 8 threads of the E5-2676 v3 are not sufficient to overcome the clock speed deficit.

For workloads that are heavily single-threaded, such as legacy applications or lightly threaded simulation tools, the E5-1680 v3 is the clear choice. Its 3.80 GHz boost clock provides a meaningful advantage in any workload that cannot fully utilize multiple cores. For workloads that can use all available threads, the E5-2676 v3 offers more parallel capacity, but the recorded Cinebench data shows it still loses in multicore tests.

The E5-2676 v3 does have advantages outside of raw benchmark scores. Its TDP of 120 watts is lower than the 140 watts of the E5-1680 v3, which may be significant in dense server deployments where thermal headroom is limited. The E5-2676 v3 also supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the E5-1680 v3 is limited to DDR4. This gives the E5-2676 v3 flexibility in environments with existing DDR3 infrastructure. Both processors use a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and support ECC memory.

The E5-2676 v3 also has a larger L3 cache at 30 MB shared, compared to 20 MB shared on the E5-1680 v3. This larger cache pool may benefit workloads with large working sets that exhibit spatial or temporal locality. However, the benchmark data does not show a cache-driven advantage for the E5-2676 v3 in any of the recorded Cinebench tests.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture. They are built on the Haswell-EP microarchitecture, use a 22 nm process node, and are manufactured by Intel. Both have 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. Both use the Intel Socket 2011-3 and provide PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. Neither processor includes integrated graphics.

The core configuration is the primary architectural difference. The E5-1680 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E5-2676 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The E5-1680 v3 compensates for its lower core count with higher clock speeds: 3.20 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, compared to 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost for the E5-2676 v3.

Cache allocation differs as well. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is shared and differs significantly: the E5-1680 v3 has 20 MB, while the E5-2676 v3 has 30 MB. The larger L3 cache on the E5-2676 v3 reflects its higher core count, as each core can access a larger pool of shared cache.

Memory support is another differentiator. The E5-1680 v3 supports DDR4 only, while the E5-2676 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

The E5-1680 v3 has an unlocked multiplier, making it suitable for overclocking in compatible motherboards. The E5-2676 v3 has a locked multiplier. The E5-1680 v3 was released in September 2014, while the E5-2676 v3 has no recorded release date in the database. Both processors are end-of-life products in the server and workstation market segment.

The TDP differs as well: 140 watts for the E5-1680 v3 and 120 watts for the E5-2676 v3. The lower TDP of the E5-2676 v3 is consistent with its lower clock speeds, despite having more cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 wins all single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 160 against 155 for the E5-2676 v3. In R20, the scores are 669 versus 648. In R23, they are 1593 versus 1543. The margin is 3.2% in each case.

Q: Does the E5-2676 v3 have more cores?

A: Yes. The E5-2676 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the E5-1680 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite this, the E5-2676 v3 still loses all multicore Cinebench tests because its lower clock speeds offset the additional cores.

Q: Do both processors use the same socket?

A: Yes. Both use the Intel Socket 2011-3 and are based on the Haswell-EP architecture with a 22 nm process node.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The E5-1680 v3 supports DDR4 only. The E5-2676 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and support ECC memory.

Q: Is the E5-1680 v3 overclockable?

A: Yes. The E5-1680 v3 has an unlocked multiplier. The E5-2676 v3 has a locked multiplier.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The E5-1680 v3 has an average benchmark score of 3265, essentially matching the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 at 3264. The E5-2676 v3 averages 3163, closely matching the AMD Ryzen 5 5560U at 3162.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 in every recorded benchmark, with a consistent 3.2% margin across all six Cinebench tests. The average benchmark score of 3265 versus 3163 confirms the overall advantage.

The E5-1680 v3 is the better choice for workloads that prioritize raw performance per thread, including single-threaded applications and lightly threaded rendering tasks. Its higher base and boost clocks, combined with an unlocked multiplier, make it the more flexible processor for performance-oriented systems.

The E5-2676 v3 is not without merit. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide more parallel capacity, and its 30 MB of L3 cache is larger than the 20 MB on the E5-1680 v3. The lower 120 watt TDP makes it more suitable for power-constrained environments. The support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory allows it to be deployed in systems with existing DDR3 infrastructure.

However, the benchmark results show that the E5-2676 v3's advantages do not translate into performance wins in Cinebench. The additional cores and cache are insufficient to overcome the clock speed deficit. For any workload represented by the recorded benchmarks, the E5-1680 v3 is the faster processor.

The choice between these two ultimately depends on the specific deployment context. For maximum performance in the tested workloads, the E5-1680 v3 is the clear winner. For environments where power consumption, memory flexibility, or raw core count matter more than the measured benchmark scores, the E5-2676 v3 may be the more appropriate selection. The recorded data, however, favors the E5-1680 v3 without qualification.