Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unusually one-sided. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 takes the win every time. There are no mixed results, no workload-specific reversals, just a consistent, if modest, margin in favor of the newer chip.

Starting with multi-core performance, the E5-2650 v4 scores 1098 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, against 1068 for the E5-2618L v3. That is a 2.7% advantage. The gap stays almost identical in Cinebench R20, where the E5-2650 v4 posts 4579 versus 4452, a 2.8% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the same pattern: 10904 for the E5-2650 v4, 10601 for the E5-2618L v3, again a 2.8% difference. The consistency of that margin across three different Cinebench versions suggests the performance delta is structural, not a quirk of any single test version.

Single-core results tell the same story with slightly different numbers. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the E5-2650 v4 scores 155, the E5-2618L v3 scores 150, a 3.2% edge. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it is 646 versus 628, a 2.8% gap. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the E5-2650 v4 hits 1539, while the E5-2618L v3 manages 1496, again 2.8% ahead. So even when only one core is active, the newer architecture maintains its advantage.

Looking at the broader database picture, the E5-2650 v4 sits in the 53rd percentile of all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 3154. The E5-2618L v3 sits in the 52nd percentile, averaging 3066. The nearest rival to the E5-2618L v3 is the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U, which matches its 3066 score exactly, with a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 7 1800X is 0.1% ahead, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 7330U is 0.1% behind, and the Intel Core i7-6850K is 0.4% ahead. The E5-2650 v4, meanwhile, compares to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U, which is 0.2% ahead, the AMD Ryzen 3 5300GE also 0.2% ahead, the AMD Ryzen 5 5560U 0.3% ahead, and the Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 0.3% ahead. In absolute terms, the difference between the two Xeons is small, but it is real and it is consistently in one direction.

What stands out is that the E5-2618L v3 has the higher boost clock, 3.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, yet still loses every single-core test. That is a clear signal that the architectural improvements in the E5-2650 v4 outweigh the clock speed disadvantage. The data does not support any scenario where the older chip wins a benchmark in this suite. All six head-to-head results go to the E5-2650 v4, and the margin never dips below 2.7%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks. The E5-2618L v3 registers zero wins across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: How large is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: The E5-2650 v4 leads by 2.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1098 versus 1068) and by 2.8% in both Cinebench R20 multi-core (4579 versus 4452) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (10904 versus 10601).

Q: Does the E5-2618L v3 have any advantage in single-core tests despite its higher boost clock?

A: No. Despite a 3.40 GHz boost clock compared to 2.90 GHz, the E5-2618L v3 still trails in every single-core test. The E5-2650 v4 leads by 3.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core and by 2.8% in both R20 and R23 single-core.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall database ranking?

A: The E5-2650 v4 ranks in the 53rd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 3154. The E5-2618L v3 ranks in the 52nd percentile with an average score of 3066.

Q: What are the closest rival CPUs to each processor according to the database?

A: For the E5-2618L v3, the closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U with an identical 3066 average score. For the E5-2650 v4, the closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U, which is 0.2% ahead with a 3159 average score.

Q: Is the E5-2650 v4 still in production?

A: No. The database lists the E5-2650 v4 as end-of-life, while the E5-2618L v3 is listed as active production.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark results, there is only one processor that wins anywhere, and that is the E5-2650 v4. It takes every multi-core test, which makes it the sensible pick for threaded workloads like rendering, compilation, or any server task that scales across cores. Its 12 cores and 24 threads give it the structural advantage, and the benchmarks confirm that advantage translates into real performance.

It also wins every single-core test, which means it is the better choice for lightly threaded applications too. The E5-2618L v3 has a higher boost clock, but the recorded data shows that does not help it in practice. If a workload depends on one or two threads, the E5-2650 v4 still comes out ahead, and the margin is nearly the same as in multi-core tests.

There is no use case in the data where the E5-2618L v3 comes out on top. It has a lower TDP of 75 watts against 105 watts, so in a power-constrained environment it will draw less, but that is a physical specification, not a benchmark win. From a pure performance standpoint, every piece of recorded evidence points to the E5-2650 v4.

For a system that needs to handle a mix of single-threaded and multi-threaded duties, the E5-2650 v4 covers both bases. The E5-2618L v3 is not without merit, it is an active production part and it consumes less power, but the benchmark suite shows no workload category where it outperforms its rival.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The E5-2618L v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E5-2650 v4 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Base clocks are close, 2.30 GHz versus 2.20 GHz, but boost clocks differ more substantially: the E5-2618L v3 boosts to 3.40 GHz, the E5-2650 v4 to 2.90 GHz.

Thermal design power is notably different. The E5-2618L v3 is rated at 75 watts, the E5-2650 v4 at 105 watts. Both use the Intel Socket 2011-3 and support DDR4 memory in quad-channel configuration, so those are not differentiators. Memory bandwidth does differ, however: the E5-2618L v3 is rated at 59.7 GB/s, the E5-2650 v4 at 68.3 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and both provide PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU.

Cache configurations differ as well. Each core has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 in both processors, but the shared L3 cache is 20 MB on the E5-2618L v3 and 30 MB on the E5-2650 v4. The E5-2618L v3 launched with a $779 MSRP, the E5-2650 v4 with a $1166 MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither includes integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The E5-2618L v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, and uses a 22 nm process node. The E5-2650 v4 uses the Broadwell architecture, Broadwell-EP, on a 14 nm node. That process shrink is significant: the E5-2650 v4 packs 3,400 million transistors into a 246 mm² die, while the E5-2618L v3 has 2,600 million transistors on a larger 356 mm² die. The newer node allows more transistors in a smaller area, which helps explain the performance advantage despite lower clocks.

The release dates are roughly a year and a half apart. The E5-2618L v3 was released in September 2014, the E5-2650 v4 in March 2016. The production status also differs: the E5-2618L v3 is still active, while the E5-2650 v4 is listed as end-of-life.

Cache architecture benefits from the newer design as well. The E5-2650 v4 has 50% more shared L3 cache, 30 MB versus 20 MB. That larger cache, combined with the denser process node, gives the E5-2650 v4 an edge in memory-sensitive workloads. The memory bandwidth rating is also higher, 68.3 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both are aimed at the server and workstation market segment.

The part numbers differ as expected: SR200 for the E5-2618L v3, SR2N3 for the E5-2650 v4. Both are manufactured by Intel and both use the same socket, which means they are drop-in compatible with the same motherboards from a socket perspective.

The Verdict

The verdict is straightforward: the Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 is the faster processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests, and the margins are consistent, between 2.7% and 3.2%. It has more cores, more threads, more cache, higher memory bandwidth, and a more advanced 14 nm process node. The only specification where the E5-2618L v3 has a clear advantage is power consumption, with a 75 watt TDP versus 105 watts, and it retains the higher boost clock, though that does not translate into benchmark wins.

Who should pick the E5-2618L v3? Someone running a power-sensitive server or workstation where the 30 watt TDP difference matters more than the performance gap. It is also still in active production, which can matter for availability and long-term supply. The launch MSRP was $779, which was lower than the E5-2650 v4's $1166 launch MSRP, though ongoing pricing is not part of this analysis.

Who should pick the E5-2650 v4? Anyone who wants the best performance from this comparison. The benchmark data shows it ahead in single-core and multi-core, across every Cinebench version recorded. It ranks one percentile higher in the overall database, 53rd versus 52nd, and has a higher average benchmark score, 3154 versus 3066. The only caveat is its end-of-life production status, but for raw performance, the E5-2650 v4 is the clear choice. The data does not offer any reason to prefer the E5-2618L v3 on performance grounds.