CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5630 and Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 are two server processors separated by roughly four years of platform evolution, yet their benchmark results place them in an unusually tight race. The older Westmere-based E5630 edges out the newer Haswell-based E5-2603 v3 in every single Cinebench test recorded, though by margins so slim that they fall within run-to-run noise. Both chips land at the 31st percentile of all CPUs in the database, with average scores of 1110 and 1103 respectively. The data paints a picture of two fundamentally different design philosophies, one relying on higher clocks and Hyper-Threading, the other on more physical cores and a newer memory architecture, that ultimately converge on nearly identical application performance.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark table shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5630, which wins all five recorded Cinebench tests. However, the margins tell the real story: the largest victory is just 1.1% in Cinebench R20 single-core, with the other four wins ranging from 0.3% to 0.7%. These are not meaningful performance advantages; they are the kind of differences that disappear with background processes or thermal variation. The E5630's win in multi-threaded workloads is particularly notable given that it has only 4 cores and 8 threads, while the E5-2603 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads.

The E5-2603 v3's lack of any benchmark wins does not mean it lacks strengths. Its architectural advantages show up in areas the Cinebench suite does not directly measure. The E5-2603 v3 supports DDR4 memory across a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the E5630's DDR3 triple-channel setup. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, large database operations, in-memory analytics, or virtualization with heavy I/O, the newer platform has a clear structural edge that synthetic CPU tests will not reveal. Similarly, the E5-2603 v3's PCIe Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes offers twice the per-lane bandwidth of the E5630's PCIe Gen 2, which matters for NVMe storage arrays or high-end GPU compute clusters.

Where the E5630 wins is in responsiveness and lightly-threaded performance. Its base clock of 2.53 GHz and boost clock of 2.80 GHz are substantially higher than the E5-2603 v3's 1.60 GHz base clock, which lacks a boost entirely. That clock advantage, combined with Hyper-Threading, lets the older chip handle single-threaded legacy applications and interactive server workloads with less latency. The 1.1% single-core R20 win and 0.7% single-core R23 win reflect this, even if the percentages are small.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel's server roadmap. The E5630 uses the Westmere-EP architecture on a 32 nm process node, packing 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. The E5-2603 v3 uses Haswell-EP on 22 nm, with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. That is more than double the transistor count and a 49% larger die, but the newer process node allows it to run at a much lower 1.60 GHz base clock while drawing only slightly more power: 85 W TDP versus 80 W.

Core configuration differs significantly. The E5630 has 4 physical cores with 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the E5-2603 v3 has 6 physical cores but no Hyper-Threading, giving it 6 threads. The E5630's per-core L1 and L2 caches are identical to the E5-2603 v3's, 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively, but the L3 cache situation is reversed in capacity: the E5630 has 12 MB shared, while the E5-2603 v3 has 15 MB shared. The newer chip's extra 3 MB of L3 is a modest advantage for cache-resident workloads.

Memory architecture is the most dramatic divergence. The E5630 uses triple-channel DDR3, while the E5-2603 v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 with a rated memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The E5-2603 v3 also moves to the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform with PCIe Gen 3 and 40 CPU lanes, versus the E5630's Socket 1366 with PCIe Gen 2. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for the server segment. The E5-2603 v3 carries a launch MSRP of $213. The E5630's launch MSRP is not listed in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the E5630 scoring 324 versus the E5-2603 v3's 323, a 0.3% difference. That is essentially a tie, but it is remarkable because the E5630 accomplishes it with two fewer physical cores. The E5-2603 v3's six cores cannot overcome the clock deficit and lack of SMT.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the E5630 scores 1354 versus 1346, a 0.6% lead. The single-core R20 result is 191 versus 189, a 1.1% margin, the largest gap in the entire comparison. This suggests that for lightly-threaded tasks, the E5630's 2.53/2.80 GHz clocks provide a tangible, if small, advantage over the E5-2603 v3's fixed 1.60 GHz.

Cinebench R23 shows a similar pattern. Multi-core scores are 3226 for the E5630 and 3207 for the E5-2603 v3, a 0.6% difference. Single-core R23 is 455 versus 452, a 0.7% gap. Across all five tests, the E5630 wins every round, but the average delta is just 0.66%. The benchmark data indicates that for pure CPU compute, these processors are functionally equivalent in performance, despite being built on architectures four years apart.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has 6 physical cores, while the Intel Xeon E5630 has 4 physical cores. However, the E5630 supports Hyper-Threading, giving it 8 threads, while the E5-2603 v3 has 6 threads.

Q: Does the E5630 outperform the E5-2603 v3 in all benchmarks?

A: Yes, in the recorded Cinebench tests, the E5630 wins all five head-to-head comparisons. The margins are small, ranging from 0.3% to 1.1%.

Q: What memory types do these CPUs support?

A: The E5630 supports DDR3 memory on a triple-channel bus. The E5-2603 v3 supports DDR4 memory on a quad-channel bus with a rated bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The E5630 has a base clock of 2.53 GHz and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz. The E5-2603 v3 has a base clock of 1.60 GHz and no boost clock listed.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No, both are marked as End-of-life in the production status field.

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

A: The E5630 has an average benchmark score of 1110, matching the Intel Core i7-5557U exactly, and is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3. The E5-2603 v3 scores 1103, matching the Intel Pentium Gold G6605, and is 0.1% behind the AMD PRO A12-9800.

The Verdict

The data shows a statistical dead heat. The Intel Xeon E5630 wins all five Cinebench tests, but with margins below 1.1%, these results are unlikely to translate into a perceptible real-world difference for most server workloads. The E5630's higher clocks and Hyper-Threading make it the better choice for single-threaded tasks and lightly-threaded applications that cannot use more than four cores effectively.

The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 loses every benchmark but offers architectural advantages that matter outside the Cinebench suite. Its quad-channel DDR4 memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, and 6 physical cores make it the more future-proof platform for memory-intensive or I/O-heavy workloads. The 15 MB L3 cache versus 12 MB is another point in its favor.

For buyers deciding between these two end-of-life processors, the choice hinges on platform rather than raw CPU speed. If you already own a Socket 1366 motherboard with DDR3, the E5630 provides equivalent compute performance at a lower platform cost. If you are building fresh, the E5-2603 v3's Socket 2011-3 platform offers DDR4 bandwidth and modern PCIe that the E5630 cannot match. The benchmark scores say these CPUs are equals in compute; the memory and I/O architecture says the E5-2603 v3 is the better foundation for a modern server. Given that the E5-2603 v3 launched at $213 and the E5630 has no listed MSRP, the newer chip's platform advantages make it the more rational pick for new deployments, despite losing every recorded benchmark.