Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 is the clear performance winner in every recorded benchmark. Across all six Cinebench tests, the E5-2676 v3 edges out the E5-2618L v3 by roughly 3% in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The E5-2618L v3, however, carries a much lower thermal design power of 75 watts versus 120 watts for the E5-2676 v3, making it the better pick for power-constrained server racks or systems where cooling and energy overhead are primary concerns. The E5-2676 v3 also offers 12 cores and 24 threads against 8 cores and 16 threads, so for threaded workloads that scale with core count, the E5-2676 v3 is the logical choice.

If you prioritize raw throughput per socket, the E5-2676 v3 wins outright. If you need a lower-power Haswell-EP processor with the same socket and platform compatibility, the E5-2618L v3 is the only one of the two that fits that profile. The E5-2618L v3 is still listed as Active production status, while the E5-2676 v3 is End-of-life, which may matter for long-term procurement planning. Both parts share the same Haswell-EP architecture, 22 nm process node, and Intel Socket 2011-3, so platform integration is identical. The data does not show any scenario where the E5-2618L v3 outscores its rival; the recommendation is straightforward: pick the E5-2676 v3 unless the 75-watt thermal envelope of the E5-2618L v3 is a hard requirement.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head results list six benchmark entries, and the E5-2676 v3 wins all six. There are no wins recorded for the E5-2618L v3. That said, the margins are narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E5-2676 v3 scores 1102 versus 1068, a 3.1% advantage. In R15 single-core, the margin is 155 versus 150, also 3.2%. The pattern repeats in R20 and R23: multicore deltas of 3% and 3.1%, single-core deltas of 3.1% and 3%. So the E5-2676 v3 does not dominate; it consistently leads by a small but uniform margin.

Where each one wins in practice comes down to workload type. The E5-2676 v3’s extra 4 cores and 8 threads translate directly into a multicore lead that is visible in every Cinebench multicore test. For rendering, batch processing, or any parallel compute task that saturates all threads, the E5-2676 v3 is the better part. The single-core results are closer, but still favor the E5-2676 v3 by the same 3% range, which suggests its higher base clock (2.40 GHz versus 2.30 GHz) offsets its lower boost clock (3.00 GHz versus 3.40 GHz) in lightly threaded tasks. The E5-2618L v3 has a higher boost clock, but that does not translate into a win in any recorded single-core test.

The E5-2618L v3’s only real advantage in the data is its thermal design power: 75 watts versus 120 watts. That is a 45-watt difference, and for dense server deployments or systems with limited cooling capacity, the E5-2618L v3 allows for higher packing density or quieter operation. It also supports DDR4 memory only, while the E5-2676 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, which could be relevant if you are reusing existing DDR3 DIMMs. The E5-2676 v3 also has higher memory bandwidth, 68.3 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s, and a larger shared L3 cache, 30 MB versus 20 MB. So the E5-2676 v3 wins on memory throughput and cache capacity as well.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Haswell-EP microarchitecture, manufactured on Intel’s 22 nm process, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. They share the same Intel Socket 2011-3 and support PCI Express Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The core counts differ: the E5-2618L v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E5-2676 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The E5-2618L v3 has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The E5-2676 v3 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. So the E5-2618L v3 can boost higher, but the E5-2676 v3 starts from a higher base.

Cache hierarchy is identical per core: 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache differs: 20 MB for the E5-2618L v3 and 30 MB for the E5-2676 v3. That 10 MB difference aligns with the extra 4 cores, giving each core consistent access to a larger pool of shared cache. Memory support differs as well. The E5-2618L v3 supports DDR4 only, while the E5-2676 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use a quad-channel memory bus, but the E5-2676 v3 achieves a higher memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s compared to 59.7 GB/s for the E5-2618L v3. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for Xeon server parts.

The thermal design power is a major architectural distinction: 75 watts for the E5-2618L v3 versus 120 watts for the E5-2676 v3. The lower TDP is achieved with fewer cores and a lower base clock, despite the higher boost clock. The E5-2618L v3 also has a launch MSRP of $779, while the E5-2676 v3 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. Production status also differs: the E5-2618L v3 is Active, the E5-2676 v3 is End-of-life. The part numbers differ as well: SR200 for the E5-2618L v3 and SR1Y5 for the E5-2676 v3. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either part.

The release date for the E5-2618L v3 is recorded as September 7, 2014. No release date is recorded for the E5-2676 v3. Both share the same generation label, Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP), and neither has integrated graphics, which is typical for server processors. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 wins all three Cinebench multicore tests. It scores 1102 in R15, 4592 in R20, and 10935 in R23. The E5-2618L v3 scores 1068, 4452, and 10601 respectively. The E5-2676 v3 leads by 3.1% in R15, 3% in R20, and 3.1% in R23.

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core workloads?

A: The E5-2676 v3 also wins all single-core tests. It scores 155 in R15, 648 in R20, and 1543 in R23. The E5-2618L v3 scores 150, 628, and 1496. The delta is 3.2%, 3.1%, and 3% respectively.

Q: Does the E5-2618L v3 have any advantage over the E5-2676 v3?

A: Yes, in thermal design power. The E5-2618L v3 has a TDP of 75 watts, while the E5-2676 v3 has a TDP of 120 watts. The E5-2618L v3 also remains in Active production status, while the E5-2676 v3 is End-of-life. Its boost clock is higher at 3.40 GHz versus 3.00 GHz, but that does not yield any benchmark wins.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The E5-2618L v3 supports DDR4 only. The E5-2676 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use a quad-channel memory bus, but the E5-2676 v3 has higher memory bandwidth at 68.3 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard?

A: Yes. Both use Intel Socket 2011-3 and are based on the Haswell-EP architecture. They also share the same 22 nm process node and support PCI Express Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only).

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The E5-2618L v3 has an average benchmark score of 3066, placing it at the 52nd percentile of all CPUs. Its closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U with the same average score of 3066. The E5-2676 v3 has an average score of 3163, at the 53rd percentile, with the AMD Ryzen 5 5560U as its closest match at 3162.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table shows a consistent pattern: the E5-2676 v3 wins every test, and the margin is nearly uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E5-2676 v3 scores 1102 against 1068 for the E5-2618L v3, a 3.1% lead. The R15 single-core test is tighter: 155 versus 150, a 3.2% gap. These are small margins, but they appear in every workload category.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 4592 for the E5-2676 v3 and 4452 for the E5-2618L v3, a 3% difference. The single-core result is 648 versus 628, also 3.1%. The R23 tests show the same story: multicore 10935 versus 10601, a 3.1% gap, and single-core 1543 versus 1496, a 3% gap. Across all six tests, the E5-2676 v3’s advantage never exceeds 3.2% and never drops below 3%. That uniformity suggests the performance difference is structural, driven by the additional cores and higher base clock, rather than workload-specific.

The E5-2618L v3’s higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz does not help it win any single-core test. In fact, the E5-2676 v3, with a boost clock of only 3.00 GHz, still leads single-core by roughly 3%. This indicates that the 0.1 GHz base clock advantage of the E5-2676 v3, combined with its larger 30 MB L3 cache, is enough to offset the E5-2618L v3’s 0.4 GHz boost clock advantage in these Cinebench workloads.

For multicore tests, the core count difference is the dominant factor. The E5-2676 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the E5-2618L v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. That is 50% more cores and 50% more threads, yet the multicore score advantage is only about 3%. This suggests that Cinebench’s scaling is limited by other factors, such as memory bandwidth or cache contention, but the E5-2676 v3’s higher memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 59.7 GB/s) and larger shared cache (30 MB versus 20 MB) help it maintain the lead.

The average benchmark scores reflect the same ranking. The E5-2676 v3 has an average score of 3163, which is 3.2% higher than the E5-2618L v3’s 3066. In percentile terms, the E5-2676 v3 sits at the 53rd percentile of all CPUs, while the E5-2618L v3 is at the 52nd percentile. The nearest rival for the E5-2618L v3 is the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U with an identical average score of 3066, and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 7330U at 3063, a 0.1% difference. The Intel Core i7-6850K trails by 0.4% at 3079. For the E5-2676 v3, the AMD Ryzen 5 5560U is the closest rival at 3162, a 0% difference, with the AMD Ryzen 3 5300GE and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U both at 3160 and 3159, respectively. The Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 is 0.3% behind at 3154.

In the database’s own classification, the E5-2676 v3 is the superior performer by every recorded metric. The E5-2618L v3 is not a weak processor; it lands near the 52nd percentile and matches the AMD Ryzen 7 4980U exactly. But in a direct comparison, the E5-2676 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests, and that is the only relevant outcome for a buyer choosing between these two specific parts. The E5-2618L v3’s only practical appeal is its 75-watt TDP and Active production status, which may be decisive in specific server environments, but the benchmark data offers no performance scenario where it comes out ahead.