Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 Comparison

Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 and Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 are both Haswell-EP generation server processors built on the 22 nm process node, but the data shows they take different approaches to balancing core count and clock speed. The E5-2629 v3 offers 8 cores and 16 threads with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the E5-4648 v3 packs 12 cores and 24 threads but with a base clock of 1700.00 MHz (1.70 GHz) and a boost clock of 2.20 GHz. Despite the 4648 having 50% more cores, benchmark results across all recorded Cinebench tests show the 2629 v3 consistently ahead, albeit by narrow margins. Both processors share the same socket, architecture generation, process node, transistor count, die size, memory bandwidth, and PCIe configuration, but differ in cache size, memory support, TDP, and release timing. The recorded data paints a clear picture: the E5-2629 v3 wins every head-to-head benchmark, though the E5-4648 v3 brings more cores for heavily threaded workloads that do not appear in the measured tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2283, while the Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 scores 2227, a difference of roughly 2.5% based on the recorded data.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The E5-2629 v3 leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 112 versus 109 for the E5-4648 v3, a 2.8% advantage. In R20 single-core, the gap is 467 versus 456 (2.4%), and in R23 single-core, it is 1114 versus 1087 (2.5%).

Q: Does the E5-4648 v3 ever beat the E5-2629 v3 in multi-core tests, given its extra cores?

A: No. Despite having 12 cores versus 8, the E5-4648 v3 loses all multi-core tests in the database. For example, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2629 v3 scores 795 versus 776, a 2.4% win, and in R23 multi-core, 7893 versus 7701, a 2.5% win.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two?

A: The E5-2629 v3 has a TDP of 85 watts, while the E5-4648 v3 has a TDP of 105 watts. The lower TDP of the 2629 v3 suggests it is easier to cool in dense server chassis.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The E5-2629 v3 supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the E5-4648 v3 only supports DDR4. Both use a quad-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and support ECC memory.

Q: Which chip was released later?

A: The E5-4648 v3 was released on 2015-05-31, while the E5-2629 v3 was released on 2014-09-07. Both are now end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Haswell-EP architecture, also known as the codename Haswell-EP, and use the 22 nm process node from Intel. They share the same transistor count of 2,600 million and die size of 356 mm², indicating they are fundamentally the same silicon design with different binning and configuration. The key architectural differences lie in core count, cache allocation, and memory support.

The E5-2629 v3 provides 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E5-4648 v3 provides 12 cores and 24 threads. This core disparity directly influences the L3 cache size: the E5-2629 v3 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-4648 v3 has 30 MB of shared L3 cache. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, so the per-core cache hierarchy is identical, but the larger L3 on the 4648 v3 reflects its additional cores.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The E5-2629 v3 runs at a base clock of 2.40 GHz and boosts to 3.20 GHz, whereas the E5-4648 v3 runs at a base clock of 1700.00 MHz (1.70 GHz) and boosts to 2.20 GHz. This means the 2629 v3 has a 0.70 GHz higher base clock and a 1.00 GHz higher boost clock. The lower clocks on the 4648 v3 are likely a trade-off to keep power draw within its 105 watt TDP despite the extra cores.

Memory support is another differentiator. The E5-2629 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, giving it flexibility in existing server platforms. The E5-4648 v3 only supports DDR4, which is a more modern memory standard but limits upgrade paths from older DDR3 systems. Both chips use a quad-channel memory bus and achieve a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, so the memory controller throughput is identical. ECC memory support is present on both, which is expected for server/workstation parts.

Both processors use the Intel Socket 2011-3, which means they are physically interchangeable in compatible motherboards, though BIOS support would be required for each specific part. They also both have PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, so expansion capability is the same. Neither chip has integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU or a server board with embedded graphics is required. The production status for both is end-of-life, and neither has an unlocked multiplier, meaning overclocking is not an option.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 wins all six tests, with the E5-4648 v3 winning none. The margins are consistent, ranging from 2.4% to 2.8% across all tests, which suggests the higher clock speeds of the 2629 v3 are more impactful than the extra cores of the 4648 v3 in these specific workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2629 v3 scores 795 versus 776 for the E5-4648 v3, a 2.4% advantage. For single-core in the same test, the scores are 112 versus 109, a 2.8% lead. This pattern repeats in R20: multi-core shows 3315 versus 3234 (2.5% advantage for the 2629 v3), and single-core shows 467 versus 456 (2.4%). The most recent test, Cinebench R23, follows suit: multi-core scores are 7893 versus 7701 (2.5%), and single-core scores are 1114 versus 1087 (2.5%).

The fact that the 2629 v3 wins both multi-core and single-core tests is notable because the 4648 v3 has 50% more cores. In theory, a 12-core chip should outperform an 8-core chip in heavily threaded multi-core scenarios, but the recorded data shows the opposite. This is likely due to the significantly lower clock speeds of the 4648 v3. Its base clock of 1.70 GHz and boost of 2.20 GHz are substantially lower than the 2629 v3's 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost, and Cinebench workloads may not scale perfectly with core count when clock speed differences are this large.

In terms of the average benchmark score, the 2629 v3 sits at 2283, while the 4648 v3 sits at 2227. The 2629 v3's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-1557 with an average score of 2282 (0% delta), the Intel Core i3-10305 at 2264 (0.8% delta), the Intel Core i5-10400H at 2303 (-0.9% delta), and the Intel Core i7-8809G at 2307 (-1.1% delta). The 4648 v3's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-8559U at 2225 (0.1% delta), the Intel Core i7-5775C at 2224 (0.1% delta), the Intel Xeon D-1548 at 2231 (-0.2% delta), and the Intel Xeon D-1715TER at 2238 (-0.5% delta). Both chips rank at the 47th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy similar overall performance tiers despite the core count difference.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 is the better performing processor in every benchmark test that was measured. It wins all six Cinebench tests (R15 multi-core and single-core, R20 multi-core and single-core, R23 multi-core and single-core) with margins between 2.4% and 2.8%. Its average benchmark score of 2283 is higher than the 4648 v3's 2227, and it does so with a lower TDP of 85 watts versus 105 watts. For workloads that resemble Cinebench rendering or single-threaded tasks, the 2629 v3 is the clear choice.

The E5-4648 v3, however, offers more cores and threads: 12 cores and 24 threads versus 8 cores and 16 threads. It also has a larger L3 cache of 30 MB versus 20 MB. The data shows that in the tested benchmarks, these advantages do not translate into higher scores, but the extra cores could be beneficial for workloads that scale differently, such as virtualization with many small VMs, database work with high thread counts, or other server tasks that do not rely solely on raw clock speed. The 4648 v3 also has a launch MSRP of $2405, which is a listed specification, but no pricing data is available for the 2629 v3.

For most single-socket server or workstation deployments where the measured benchmarks are representative, the E5-2629 v3 is the safer pick. It delivers higher performance in all tested scenarios, consumes less power, and supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, providing more flexible platform compatibility. The E5-4648 v3 should be considered only if the specific workload benefits from 12 cores and 24 threads and can tolerate the lower clock speeds and higher TDP.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based on the database records:

• Cores: The E5-2629 v3 has 8 cores; the E5-4648 v3 has 12 cores.
• Threads: The E5-2629 v3 has 16 threads; the E5-4648 v3 has 24 threads.
• Base Clock: The E5-2629 v3 is 2.40 GHz; the E5-4648 v3 is 1700.00 MHz (1.70 GHz).
• Boost Clock: The E5-2629 v3 is 3.20 GHz; the E5-4648 v3 is 2.20 GHz.
• TDP: The E5-2629 v3 is 85 watts; the E5-4648 v3 is 105 watts.
• L3 Cache: The E5-2629 v3 has 20 MB shared; the E5-4648 v3 has 30 MB shared.
• Memory Support: The E5-2629 v3 supports DDR3 and DDR4; the E5-4648 v3 supports DDR4 only.
• Release Date: The E5-2629 v3 was released 2014-09-07; the E5-4648 v3 was released 2015-05-31.
• Part Number: The E5-2629 v3 is SR1XY; the E5-4648 v3 is SR26R.
• Launch MSRP: The E5-4648 v3 has a listed launch MSRP of $2405; the E5-2629 v3 has no listed launch MSRP.

All other recorded specifications are identical: both use the Intel Socket 2011-3, have Haswell-EP architecture, are built on the 22 nm process node by Intel, have 2,600 million transistors, a 356 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, quad-channel memory bus, 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, no integrated graphics, server/workstation market segment, end-of-life production status, and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 wins in every measured benchmark category. It leads in multi-core performance, as shown by the Cinebench R15 multi-core score of 795 versus 776, the R20 multi-core score of 3315 versus 3234, and the R23 multi-core score of 7893 versus 7701. It also leads in single-core performance, with R15 single-core scores of 112 versus 109, R20 single-core scores of 467 versus 456, and R23 single-core scores of 1114 versus 1087. Its higher clock speeds, lower TDP, and dual memory support make it the better choice for applications that prioritize per-thread performance, power efficiency, or platform flexibility. The 2629 v3 is also the better fit for systems where DDR3 memory is already available, since it supports both DDR3 and DDR4.

The Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 does not win any of the recorded benchmarks, so the data does not show a category where it outperforms the 2629 v3. However, its specification advantages are clear in the raw numbers: it has 12 cores versus 8, 24 threads versus 16, and 30 MB of L3 cache versus 20 MB. For workloads that are not represented in the Cinebench tests, such as massively parallel compute tasks that scale almost linearly with core count, or server virtualization where each VM needs a dedicated thread, the extra cores could provide a benefit. The 4648 v3 also has a larger shared cache, which might help in scenarios with repeated data access patterns across many threads. The 4648 v3's later release date and its listed launch MSRP of $2405 are additional specification differences, but the database does not include benchmark data showing the 4648 v3 winning any test. In summary, the 2629 v3 is the winner in all measured performance metrics, while the 4648 v3 offers more cores and cache that may be useful in unmeasured, highly threaded server workloads.