Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 vs Intel Xeon Silver 4116 Comparison

The recorded data shows a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 across every Cinebench workload measured. The Silver 4116 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with deltas consistently around 2.5%. However, the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 remains a formidable counterpart, trailing by only a small margin despite being based on an older architecture. The benchmarks indicate that the choice between these two processors hinges less on raw performance dominance and more on platform-level characteristics, such as memory bandwidth, PCIe lane availability, and process efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 is the outright winner in every benchmark category recorded. In multi-threaded workloads, it posts scores of 1301 in Cinebench R15, 5421 in R20, and 12908 in R23. The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 trails with 1269, 5290, and 12597 in the same respective tests. The single-threaded results follow the same pattern, with the Silver 4116 scoring 183, 765, and 1822 versus the E5-1681 v3’s 179, 746, and 1778. The performance advantage is consistent, but the margin is small, ranging from a 2.2% lead in R15 single-core to a 2.5% lead in most other tests.

The E5-1681 v3 does not have a single benchmark win to its name in this comparison. Its strength lies not in Cinebench scores, but in platform features. It offers a quad-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, a detail absent for the Silver 4116. It also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. For workloads that are heavily memory-bandwidth sensitive, such as certain database or simulation tasks, the E5-1681 v3’s platform could provide a tangible benefit that the Cinebench results do not capture.

The Silver 4116, by contrast, wins on efficiency and newer process technology. It uses a 14 nm node compared to the E5-1681 v3’s 22 nm, and its TDP is 85 watts versus 135 watts. This means the Silver 4116 achieves its benchmark lead while consuming significantly less power, making it the preferred choice for dense server deployments where thermal and power budgets are constrained.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide is substantial. The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 is a Skylake-SP part, built on a 14 nm process with 8,000 million transistors. It has 12 cores and 24 threads, with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus a shared 16.5 MB L3 cache. This processor uses the Intel Socket 3647 platform and supports DDR4 memory with ECC.

The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 is from the older Haswell-EP generation. It is manufactured on a 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors and a die size of 356 mm². It offers 10 cores and 20 threads, running at a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Its cache configuration differs: 64 KB of L1 per core, but a smaller 256 KB of L2 per core. Its shared L3 cache is larger at 25 MB. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform and also supports DDR4 with ECC.

Another key difference lies in the memory subsystem. The E5-1681 v3 explicitly supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Silver 4116’s memory bus information is not recorded, so its bandwidth cannot be stated. However, the E5-1681 v3’s memory bandwidth figure is a concrete advantage. The production status also differs, with the E5-1681 v3 listed as end-of-life, while the Silver 4116’s status is not specified.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The E5-1681 v3 has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and a higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz, compared to the Silver 4116’s 2.10 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost.

Q: How do their L3 cache sizes compare?

A: The E5-1681 v3 has a larger shared L3 cache at 25 MB, while the Silver 4116 has 16.5 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Silver 4116 has a TDP of 85 watts, which is significantly lower than the E5-1681 v3’s 135 watt TDP.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Silver 4116 has an average benchmark score of 3733, placing it in the 56th percentile of all CPUs. The E5-1681 v3 has an average score of 3643, in the 55th percentile.

Q: Does the E5-1681 v3 offer any unique memory features?

A: Yes, the E5-1681 v3 lists a quad-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Silver 4116’s memory bus configuration is not recorded in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several key specifications. The Silver 4116 uses 12 cores and 24 threads, while the E5-1681 v3 uses 10 cores and 20 threads. Clock speeds favor the E5-1681 v3, with a base of 2.90 GHz and a boost of 3.50 GHz, versus the Silver 4116’s 2.10 GHz and 3.00 GHz. TDP is a major differentiator: 85 watts for the Silver 4116 against 135 watts for the E5-1681 v3.

The sockets are incompatible: the Silver 4116 uses Intel Socket 3647, while the E5-1681 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Architecture and process node differ, with Skylake-SP at 14 nm for the Silver 4116, and Haswell-EP at 22 nm for the E5-1681 v3. Transistor counts are 8,000 million versus 2,600 million, and the E5-1681 v3 has a recorded die size of 356 mm², which the Silver 4116 lacks.

Cache structures vary. The Silver 4116 has 1 MB of L2 per core and 16.5 MB of shared L3. The E5-1681 v3 has 256 KB of L2 per core and 25 MB of shared L3. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core. The E5-1681 v3 explicitly lists a quad-channel memory bus, 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, and PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. These fields are not recorded for the Silver 4116. The E5-1681 v3 is marked as end-of-life, while the Silver 4116’s production status is not noted.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results are uniformly in favor of the Silver 4116, but the margins are tight. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Silver 4116 scores 1301 against the E5-1681 v3’s 1269, a 2.5% lead. The single-core R15 result is closer: 183 versus 179, a 2.2% advantage. This pattern repeats in R20, where the multi-core scores are 5421 and 5290, and the single-core scores are 765 and 746. Both deltas sit at 2.5%.

The R23 results continue the trend. The Silver 4116 achieves 12908 in multi-core, while the E5-1681 v3 manages 12597, a 2.5% difference. In single-core, the scores are 1822 and 1778, again a 2.5% gap. Across all six tests, the Silver 4116 wins by a consistent margin. The data shows no test where the E5-1681 v3 pulls ahead, despite its higher clock speeds.

The E5-1681 v3’s higher clocks help it stay close, but the Silver 4116’s two additional cores and more modern architecture provide the edge in every measured workload. The average benchmark scores reflect this overall balance. The Silver 4116’s average is 3733, and the E5-1681 v3’s is 3643. The nearest rival comparisons place both in a similar performance class, with the Silver 4116 matching the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650GE at a 0% delta, and the E5-1681 v3 trailing the Intel Core i9-10885H by 0.2%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points decisively to the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 for raw compute performance. It wins every Cinebench test, from single-thread to multi-thread, across all three versions of the benchmark. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with the Skylake architecture, deliver a consistent 2.5% advantage over the E5-1681 v3. For workloads that are primarily CPU-bound and well-threaded, the Silver 4116 is the stronger choice.

However, the E5-1681 v3 should not be dismissed. Its higher base and boost clocks, larger 25 MB L3 cache, and explicit quad-channel memory support with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth make it a compelling option for specific use cases. If a workload depends heavily on memory throughput rather than raw core count, the E5-1681 v3’s platform could outperform its benchmark deficit. Its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also offer more direct expansion capability, a feature not quantified for the Silver 4116.

The power envelope is a major differentiator. The Silver 4116’s 85 watt TDP makes it far more efficient than the E5-1681 v3’s 135 watts. In a rack environment with many processors, this difference can be decisive. The newer 14 nm process and the fact that the E5-1681 v3 is end-of-life further tilt the long-term platform decision toward the Silver 4116.

The final choice rests on the workload. For maximum multi-core throughput per watt and the most modern platform, the Silver 4116 is the data-backed winner. For legacy compatibility, higher memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes, the E5-1681 v3 offers capabilities that the Silver 4116 does not record. The performance gap is small enough that platform features may legitimately outweigh the benchmark scores. The data shows a clear winner in Cinebench, but the E5-1681 v3 remains a viable alternative for memory-centric or expansion-heavy deployments.