CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5630 and Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 are both end-of-life server processors, yet they represent distinct eras of Intel's Xeon lineage. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the newer Haswell-based E5-2609 v3 dominating the older Westmere-based E5630 across every benchmark recorded. While their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 1110 for the E5630 versus 1109 for the E5-2609 v3, the individual workload results tell a more decisive story, revealing that the E5-2609 v3's architectural advantages translate into consistent, measurable wins in multi-threaded and single-threaded tasks alike.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The E5-2609 v3 wins all five recorded head-to-head comparisons, and it does so with remarkable consistency. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the E5-2609 v3 scores 386 against the E5630's 324, a delta of -16.1% from the E5630's perspective, meaning the E5-2609 v3 is approximately 19% faster. This pattern repeats across every other benchmark. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the E5-2609 v3 posts 1611 versus 1354, a 16% advantage. The R23 multi-core test shows 3836 versus 3226, again a 15.9% margin. These multi-core results are expected given the core count disparity, the E5-2609 v3 has six physical cores to the E5630's four, but the single-core results are more telling.

The E5-2609 v3 also wins the single-core contests, which is notable because it runs at a much lower base clock. The E5630 has a base clock of 2.53 GHz and a boost of 2.80 GHz, while the E5-2609 v3 has a base clock of only 1900.00 MHz (1.90 GHz) and no boost clock at all. Despite this lower frequency, the E5-2609 v3 scores 227 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus the E5630's 191, a 15.9% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 541 versus 455, again a 15.9% margin. This demonstrates that the Haswell architecture's instruction-per-clock (IPC) efficiency more than compensates for the raw clock speed deficit. The data suggests that the E5-2609 v3 is not just faster in parallel workloads due to more cores; it is also faster per thread, making it a superior choice for lightly threaded applications as well.

The overall benchmark picture is unambiguous. The E5-2609 v3 wins all five head-to-head tests, with the E5630 registering zero wins. The deltas range from -15.9% to -16.1%, showing a tightly clustered performance gap across all Cinebench versions. This consistency indicates that the E5-2609 v3's advantage is systemic, not workload-specific. For any user comparing these two processors, the E5-2609 v3 is the outright performance winner in every measured category.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5630 has an average benchmark score of 1110, while the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 scores 1109. The difference is negligible, at 0.1% in favor of the E5630, according to the nearestRivals data.

Q: Does the E5-2609 v3 beat the E5630 in multi-core tests?

A: Yes, decisively. The E5-2609 v3 scores 386 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 324 for the E5630, and 3836 in R23 multi-core versus 3226. The E5-2609 v3 wins every multi-core benchmark recorded, with deltas of approximately 16%.

Q: How does single-core performance compare between the two?

A: The E5-2609 v3 leads in single-core as well. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 227 versus 191 for the E5630, and in R23 single-core, it scores 541 versus 455. Both are roughly 16% advantages for the E5-2609 v3.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5630 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, meaning it has more physical cores but no Hyper-Threading (2 fewer threads total).

Q: Which processor supports more memory channels?

A: The E5-2609 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory, while the E5630 supports triple-channel DDR3. The E5-2609 v3 also lists a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, a figure not provided for the E5630.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the E5-2609 v3?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is $306. No launch MSRP is listed for the Intel Xeon E5630.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 is the superior processor in every benchmark category recorded. It wins all five head-to-head tests, with a consistent 16% performance lead over the E5630 in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The E5-2609 v3 achieves this with a lower base clock (1.90 GHz versus 2.53 GHz) and no boost capability, relying instead on its newer Haswell architecture and two additional physical cores. For any workload, whether it is heavily threaded or single-threaded, the E5-2609 v3 is the better choice based purely on performance data.

However, the E5630 is not without its own merits. It offers 8 threads versus the E5-2609 v3's 6, which could theoretically benefit highly parallel tasks that scale with thread count rather than core count. But the benchmark results do not reflect this; the E5-2609 v3 still wins the multi-core tests by a wide margin. The E5630 also has a higher base clock and a boost clock, which might suggest better responsiveness in clock-sensitive tasks, yet the single-core scores show the E5-2609 v3 is faster there too. The E5630's only recorded advantage is its average benchmark score of 1110 versus 1109, a 0.1% difference that is statistically irrelevant.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life processors, the E5-2609 v3 is the clear pick for performance. It also offers more modern platform features, including DDR4 memory support, quad-channel memory bus, and PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, versus the E5630's DDR3, triple-channel, and PCIe Gen 2. The E5-2609 v3 does have a higher TDP (85W versus 80W), but that is a minor trade-off for the significant performance gains. The E5630 might be suitable for legacy systems on Socket 1366 where an upgrade path is required, but the E5-2609 v3 on Socket 2011-3 is the stronger processor by every measured metric.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The E5630 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads. Base clocks are 2.53 GHz for the E5630 and 1900.00 MHz for the E5-2609 v3; the E5630 has a boost clock of 2.80 GHz, while the E5-2609 v3 has no boost clock. TDP is 80W for the E5630 and 85W for the E5-2609 v3. Sockets differ: the E5630 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the E5-2609 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3.

Memory support is a major divergence. The E5630 uses DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus, while the E5-2609 v3 uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and a listed memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. PCIe support also differs: the E5630 is Gen 2, while the E5-2609 v3 is Gen 3 with 40 Lanes (CPU only). Both processors support ECC memory and are unlocked multipliers (false for both). Release dates are March 2010 for the E5630 and September 2014 for the E5-2609 v3. The E5-2609 v3 has a launch MSRP of $306, while the E5630 has no listed launch MSRP. Part numbers are SLBVB for the E5630 and SR1YC for the E5-2609 v3.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two Xeons is substantial, reflecting a four-year generational leap. The E5630 is built on Intel's Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, fabricated on a 32 nm process node. It contains 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The E5-2609 v3, in contrast, uses the Haswell architecture with the Haswell-EP codename, on a 22 nm process node, packing 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die. This nearly doubles the transistor count while using a smaller process, enabling more complex logic and larger caches.

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but not in size. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the E5630 has 12 MB shared, while the E5-2609 v3 has 15 MB shared. The E5-2609 v3's larger L3 cache, combined with the Haswell architecture's improved prefetching and execution units, explains its superior IPC despite the lower clock speed. The E5630's Westmere design is older, with a simpler out-of-order execution engine, which is why it trails in every single-core benchmark.

Socket and memory architecture also reflect the generational split. The E5630 uses the older Socket 1366 with triple-channel DDR3, while the E5-2609 v3 uses Socket 2011-3 with quad-channel DDR4 and a specified 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth. The PCIe interface is Gen 2 on the E5630 versus Gen 3 with 40 lanes on the E5-2609 v3, offering double the bandwidth for expansion cards and NVMe storage. Both are server/workstation parts with ECC support, but the E5-2609 v3 is the more modern platform in every respect. The data shows that the E5-2609 v3's architectural advantages, more cores, larger cache, newer node, and faster memory bus, translate directly into a 16% performance lead across all Cinebench tests.