Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 vs Intel Xeon W-1290TE Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison against the Intel Xeon W-1290TE. Across six Cinebench tests, spanning both single-core and multi-core workloads, the older Haswell-EP processor takes the win with a margin ranging from 3.0% to 3.5%. This is not a case of one chip dominating in some areas while losing in others; the E5-1681 v3 simply outperforms the W-1290TE in every measured workload.

The single-core results are particularly telling. The E5-1681 v3 achieves 179 points in Cinebench R15 single-core, 746 in R20, and 1778 in R23, while the W-1290TE trails at 173, 724, and 1724 respectively. The single-core advantage is consistent at roughly 3% to 3.5%, which might seem modest but is uniform across all three Cinebench generations. The multi-core results follow the same pattern, with the E5-1681 v3 leading by 3.1% to 3.2% in R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests.

The overall average benchmark score places the E5-1681 v3 at 3643, while the W-1290TE sits at 3532. That is a difference of roughly 3.1% in the aggregate. Both processors share the same percentile rank of 55 against all CPUs in the database, indicating they occupy a similar performance tier overall. However, within that tier, the E5-1681 v3 is consistently ahead.

The practical interpretation is straightforward: if the workload is purely computational and relies on CPU performance as measured by Cinebench, the E5-1681 v3 is the better choice. The W-1290TE does not win in any category measured here. That said, the differences are small enough that real-world applications might not show dramatic distinctions unless they are highly sensitive to the specific performance characteristics these benchmarks capture.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel's design philosophy, and the architectural gap is substantial. The E5-1681 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process node, while the W-1290TE is built on the Comet Lake architecture at 14 nm. The E5-1681 v3 was released in September 2014, whereas the W-1290TE arrived in May 2020, nearly six years later.

The die size difference is notable: the E5-1681 v3 has a die size of 356 mm², while the W-1290TE is significantly smaller at 206 mm². The E5-1681 v3 also packs 2,600 million transistors on its die, a figure not recorded for the W-1290TE. The larger die and higher transistor count reflect the Haswell-EP design's focus on server-grade throughput, even if the newer process node of the W-1290TE allows for a more compact implementation.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is larger on the E5-1681 v3 at 25 MB, compared to 20 MB on the W-1290TE. That 5 MB difference in shared cache could matter for workloads that benefit from larger pooled data.

Memory support shows another divergence. The E5-1681 v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus, delivering 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The W-1290TE uses a dual-channel configuration, which halves the memory channels and reduces bandwidth to 46.9 GB/s. The E5-1681 v3 also offers 40 PCIe lanes (Gen 3), while the W-1290TE provides only 16 lanes. Both support DDR4 memory and ECC, but the platform capabilities are clearly different.

The E5-1681 v3 has no integrated graphics, while the W-1290TE includes Intel UHD Graphics P630. This is a meaningful feature difference for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU. The W-1290TE also has a dramatically lower thermal design power at 35 watts, compared to 135 watts for the E5-1681 v3. That power efficiency is a direct result of the newer architecture and lower clock speeds.

The W-1290TE has a base clock of 1800.00 MHz, which is far lower than the E5-1681 v3's 2.90 GHz base clock. However, the W-1290TE boosts to 4.50 GHz, significantly higher than the E5-1681 v3's 3.50 GHz boost. The W-1290TE launches with an MSRP of $552, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the E5-1681 v3.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows the E5-1681 v3 scoring 1269 against the W-1290TE's 1230, a 3.2% advantage. The single-core R15 result is 179 versus 173, a 3.5% edge. These are the largest percentage gaps in the entire comparison, suggesting the Haswell architecture retains a slight per-core efficiency advantage in this older benchmark.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore scores are 5290 for the E5-1681 v3 and 5129 for the W-1290TE, a 3.1% difference. The single-core R20 scores are 746 and 724, respectively, a 3.0% margin. The delta narrows slightly from R15 to R20, but the pattern holds.

Cinebench R23 shows the E5-1681 v3 at 12597 multicore and 1778 single-core, while the W-1290TE reaches 12213 and 1724. The multicore delta is 3.1%, and the single-core delta is 3.1% as well. The consistency is remarkable: across all six tests, the E5-1681 v3 leads by a margin between 3.0% and 3.5%, never falling below 3% and never exceeding 3.5%.

The average benchmark score comparison reinforces this. The E5-1681 v3's average is 3643, while the W-1290TE's is 3532. The nearest rivals for the E5-1681 v3 include the Intel Core i9-10885H at 3651 (0.2% higher), the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 at 3658 (0.4% higher), and the Intel Core i3-13100E at 3668 (0.7% higher). The W-1290TE's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-12300 at 3532 (identical score), the Intel Core i5-10600K at 3533 (0% difference), and the Intel Xeon W-2135 at 3530 (0.1% higher).

What the data implies is that the E5-1681 v3, despite being based on much older architecture, still edges out the newer Comet Lake part in raw compute throughput. The higher base clock of the E5-1681 v3 likely contributes to this, even though the W-1290TE has a much higher boost clock. The quad-channel memory subsystem of the E5-1681 v3 may also help in multi-core workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290TE has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 boosts to 3.50 GHz.

Q: How do the memory channels compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Intel Xeon W-1290TE uses dual-channel memory, delivering 46.9 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W-1290TE includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel UHD Graphics P630. The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 has 25 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon W-1290TE has 20 MB.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 has an average benchmark score of 3643, and the Intel Xeon W-1290TE has an average of 3532.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does each processor provide?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Intel Xeon W-1290TE provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 is the faster processor in every benchmark measured. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with margins between 3.0% and 3.5%. The average benchmark score difference of 111 points (3643 versus 3532) further confirms this, even though both processors sit at the 55th percentile overall.

For users who prioritize raw CPU compute performance, the E5-1681 v3 is the clear choice. Its higher base clock, larger L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bandwidth give it a consistent edge in Cinebench workloads. The fact that it achieves this despite being based on 2014-era Haswell architecture confirms the design's efficiency.

However, the W-1290TE has its own advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. Its 35-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the E5-1681 v3's 135 watts, making it far more suitable for power-constrained environments or systems with limited cooling. The integrated graphics provide display output capabilities that the E5-1681 v3 lacks. The smaller die size and newer 14 nm process also suggest better manufacturing efficiency. The W-1290TE also has a higher boost clock at 4.50 GHz, which could benefit bursty workloads that do not sustain full-core utilization.

The socket difference is critical for system planning. The E5-1681 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a server platform, while the W-1290TE uses Intel Socket 1200, which is more common in workstation and desktop environments. Users building a new system would need to choose their platform first, and the motherboard selection would likely dictate which processor is feasible.

For server or workstation workloads where multi-threaded throughput is the priority and power consumption is not a primary concern, the E5-1681 v3 is the better performer. For systems that value power efficiency, integrated graphics, or a higher boost clock, the W-1290TE offers compelling trade-offs despite losing every benchmark.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 | Intel Xeon W-1290TE |

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

| Architecture | Haswell-EP | Comet Lake |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 1800.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.50 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 135 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 206 mm² |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | Not recorded |

| L3 Cache | 25 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | 46.9 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 3, 40 lanes | Gen 3, 16 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel UHD Graphics P630 |

| Release Date | 2014-09-07 | 2020-05-12 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $552 |

| Part Number | SR1Y2 | SRJFH |