Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 vs Intel Xeon W-1290TE Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-1290TE and the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 are two server/workstation processors from different eras of Intel’s lineup. The W-1290TE, a Comet Lake part from 2020, and the E5-1680 v4, a Broadwell-EP part from 2016, are compared here using Cinebench benchmark scores. The data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the newer W-1290TE across all tested workloads, despite the E5-1680 v4 having a significantly higher base clock and a much larger memory bus. This analysis walks through the raw benchmark scores, architectural differences, and the practical implications for each processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent across all six Cinebench tests, with the Intel Xeon W-1290TE winning every single comparison. The margins are tight, never exceeding a 1.2% delta, but they are uniform across single-core and multi-core workloads. This indicates a systematic advantage for the W-1290TE rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In the multi-core tests, the W-1290TE’s lead is steady. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1230 against the E5-1680 v4’s 1217, a 1.1% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, with a score of 5129 versus 5073, again a 1.1% delta. The largest absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the W-1290TE scores 12213 against the E5-1680 v4’s 12080, maintaining that same 1.1% margin. These results are notable because the E5-1680 v4 has a 3.40 GHz base clock versus the W-1290TE’s 1.80 GHz, yet the W-1290TE still manages to edge ahead in sustained multi-threaded work.

The single-core results follow the same narrative. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the W-1290TE scores 173 versus 171, a 1.2% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 724 versus 716 (1.1% delta), and in Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1724 versus 1705 (1.1% delta). The W-1290TE’s 4.50 GHz boost clock, compared to the E5-1680 v4’s 4.00 GHz boost, clearly provides the edge here, but the consistency of the margin across both single and multi-threaded tests suggests the newer architecture is simply more efficient per clock.

The overall average benchmark score for the W-1290TE is 3532, placing it in the 55th percentile of all CPUs. The E5-1680 v4 has an average score of 3494, also in the 55th percentile. The nearest rivals for the W-1290TE include the Intel Core i3-12300 and Intel Core i5-10600K, both with average scores of 3532 and 3533 respectively (0% delta). The E5-1680 v4’s nearest rivals are the Intel Xeon E-2246G (3492, 0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i9-9900T (3499, -0.2% delta). This places both chips in a similar performance tier, but the data shows the W-1290TE is the faster of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290TE scores 12213 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 1.1% higher than the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4’s score of 12080.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The W-1290TE wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1724 versus the E5-1680 v4’s 1705, a 1.1% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The W-1290TE has an average benchmark score of 3532, while the E5-1680 v4 has an average score of 3494. Both processors sit in the 55th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290TE has 10 cores and 20 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does the E5-1680 v4 have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 has no integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon W-1290TE includes Intel UHD Graphics P630.

Q: What is the memory bus width difference?

A: The W-1290TE supports dual-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The E5-1680 v4 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on the same 14 nm process node from Intel, but they represent different architectural generations. The Intel Xeon W-1290TE is based on the Comet Lake architecture, while the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 is based on the Broadwell-EP architecture. This generational gap explains many of the performance and feature differences observed in the data.

The W-1290TE is a 10-core, 20-thread processor with a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. It has a 20 MB shared L3 cache. The E5-1680 v4 is an 8-core, 16-thread processor with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. It also has a 20 MB shared L3 cache. The W-1290TE compensates for its much lower base clock with a higher boost clock and two additional cores, allowing it to outperform the E5-1680 v4 in all Cinebench tests despite the E5’s higher sustained clock speed.

The die size differs notably: the W-1290TE has a die size of 206 mm², while the E5-1680 v4 has a die size of 246 mm². The E5-1680 v4 also lists a transistor count of 3,400 million, whereas the W-1290TE does not have a listed transistor count. The E5-1680 v4 uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, while the W-1290TE uses the Intel Socket 1200. The W-1290TE features integrated Intel UHD Graphics P630, while the E5-1680 v4 has no integrated graphics.

Memory support is a major architectural differentiator. The W-1290TE has a dual-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The E5-1680 v4 has a quad-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. This means the E5-1680 v4 has a theoretical memory bandwidth advantage of over 60%, which could benefit memory-intensive workloads. However, the benchmark data shows this does not translate to a win in the tested Cinebench workloads. Both processors support ECC memory and use PCIe Gen 3, but the W-1290TE has 16 CPU lanes while the E5-1680 v4 has 40 CPU lanes.

Specification Differences

The core specification differences between the two processors are clear from the data. The Intel Xeon W-1290TE has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The W-1290TE has a base clock of 1.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the E5-1680 v4 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The W-1290TE has a TDP of 35 watts, while the E5-1680 v4 has a TDP of 140 watts. This is a massive difference in power consumption, with the W-1290TE being far more power-efficient on paper.

The sockets are incompatible: the W-1290TE uses Intel Socket 1200, while the E5-1680 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The W-1290TE is part of the Comet Lake generation, while the E5-1680 v4 is part of the Broadwell-EP generation. The W-1290TE includes Intel UHD Graphics P630, while the E5-1680 v4 has no integrated graphics. The memory bus is dual-channel on the W-1290TE versus quad-channel on the E5-1680 v4. Memory bandwidth is 46.9 GB/s for the W-1290TE and 76.8 GB/s for the E5-1680 v4. The W-1290TE has 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E5-1680 v4 has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The W-1290TE is marked as Active in production, while the E5-1680 v4 is End-of-life. The release dates are 2020-05-12 for the W-1290TE and 2016-06-19 for the E5-1680 v4. The W-1290TE has a launch MSRP of $552, while the E5-1680 v4 has a launch MSRP of $1723.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon W-1290TE in all six Cinebench benchmarks. It wins every multi-core test and every single-core test. This means that for raw CPU compute performance as measured by Cinebench, the W-1290TE is the superior choice. Its 10 cores versus 8 cores, combined with a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz, gives it an edge that the E5-1680 v4 cannot overcome despite its higher base clock.

However, the E5-1680 v4 has clear advantages in specific areas not covered by the benchmark scores. It has a quad-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, which is significantly higher than the W-1290TE’s 46.9 GB/s. This could make the E5-1680 v4 a better fit for workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth dependent, such as large-scale data analysis or virtualized environments with many memory-hungry VMs. Additionally, the E5-1680 v4 has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16 on the W-1290TE, allowing for more expansion cards, GPUs, or NVMe drives directly attached to the CPU.

The W-1290TE wins on power efficiency. Its 35-watt TDP is drastically lower than the E5-1680 v4’s 140-watt TDP. This makes the W-1290TE a compelling option for dense server deployments or systems where cooling and power budgets are tight. The W-1290TE also includes integrated graphics, which can be useful for basic display output or hardware transcoding without a dedicated GPU.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W-1290TE is the faster processor in Cinebench workloads. It wins all six head-to-head tests with margins between 1.1% and 1.2%. If the decision is based purely on CPU compute performance, the W-1290TE is the correct choice.

The W-1290TE is also the more modern and efficient part. It has a 35-watt TDP, two more cores, and integrated graphics. It is an active product, while the E5-1680 v4 is end-of-life. For new system builds, the W-1290TE is the practical choice from a platform longevity standpoint, assuming the Intel Socket 1200 platform meets the user’s needs.

The E5-1680 v4 is not without merit, but its wins are outside the benchmark suite. Its quad-channel memory bus and 40 PCIe lanes are substantial features for certain server roles. For a system that needs to move large amounts of data across many peripherals, the E5-1680 v4’s platform may be more suitable. However, this comes at the cost of significantly higher power consumption and an older, discontinued platform.

In summary, the data indicates that the W-1290TE is the better all-around processor for general compute tasks. The E5-1680 v4 should only be considered if the specific I/O and memory bandwidth capabilities of its platform are a hard requirement, as the CPU itself loses every benchmark test in this comparison. The W-1290TE’s consistent performance advantage, combined with its lower TDP and integrated graphics, makes it the recommended pick based on the provided facts.