Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 and the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 are both Haswell-EP server processors on the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, yet they are positioned for different workloads. The data shows a clear, albeit narrow, victory for the E5-4640 v3 across every benchmark recorded, but the E5-2630 v3 offers a distinct alternative with its higher clock speeds and lower power draw. Benchmark results indicate that the E5-4640 v3 is the more capable multi-threaded part, while the E5-2630 v3 presents a more efficient single-threaded option.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is remarkably consistent. The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 wins all six Cinebench comparisons, but the margin is slim in every instance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-4640 v3 scores 888 against the E5-2630 v3's 873, a lead of 1.7%. The single-core test in R15 shows a similar story: 125 versus 123, a 1.6% advantage. This pattern of narrow victory repeats across all tests, underscoring that these two CPUs are closely matched in raw performance, despite their different core counts.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the E5-4640 v3 maintains its edge. Its multi-core score of 3702 beats the E5-2630 v3's 3640 by 1.7%, and its single-core score of 522 beats 513 by 1.8%. The largest delta in the entire comparison occurs in this R20 single-core test, where the E5-4640 v3 is 1.8% ahead. This is notable because the E5-2630 v3 has a higher boost clock, suggesting that the E5-4640 v3's architecture or cache configuration helps it punch above its weight in lightly-threaded tasks.

The most modern benchmark, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. The E5-4640 v3 posts a multi-core score of 8816, while the E5-2630 v3 achieves 8668, a 1.7% difference. In single-core R23, the scores are 1244 and 1223, respectively, again a 1.7% lead for the E5-4640 v3. The consistency of the 1.7% delta across multi-core tests suggests a fixed performance advantage, likely stemming from the additional four cores and larger L3 cache of the E5-4640 v3, which scales efficiently in Cinebench's rendering workloads.

The average benchmark scores place these processors in the same performance tier. The E5-4640 v3 has an average score of 2550, while the E5-2630 v3 sits at 2507. Their percentile ranking among all CPUs is identical at 49. Interestingly, the nearest rivals for the E5-4640 v3 include the AMD Ryzen 7 4800HS (avg score 2557, delta -0.3%) and the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 (avg score 2545, delta 0.2%). The E5-2630 v3's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3 (avg score 2511, delta -0.2%). This data shows that while the E5-4640 v3 wins the head-to-head, both chips are essentially peers in the broader CPU landscape, with the E5-4640 v3 trading blows with mainstream mobile and desktop parts of a much later generation.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear split in use cases. The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 wins every multi-core test, making it the obvious choice for workloads that scale with core count and thread count. With 12 cores and 24 threads, versus 8 cores and 16 threads on the E5-2630 v3, the E5-4640 v3 is better suited for heavily parallel tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, and scientific simulations. Its higher average benchmark score of 2550 versus 2507 further supports this, as it indicates a slightly higher overall throughput across a variety of tasks.

However, the E5-2630 v3 is not without its strengths. While it loses the single-core tests, the margins are extremely tight (1.6% to 1.8%). Its advantage lies in its clock speed profile. With a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, it is significantly faster than the E5-4640 v3's 1.90 GHz base and 2.60 GHz boost. This higher frequency means that for lightly-threaded applications that are sensitive to clock speed, such as certain database queries or legacy software, the E5-2630 v3 will feel more responsive, even if the Cinebench scores don't fully reflect it.

The E5-2630 v3 also has a significant advantage in power efficiency. Its TDP is 85 watts, compared to 105 watts for the E5-4640 v3. This 20-watt difference makes the E5-2630 v3 a more attractive option for dense server deployments where power and cooling are at a premium. For a dual-socket server, the difference in total system power draw could be substantial, making the E5-2630 v3 a better fit for high-density data centers where performance per watt is a key metric. The E5-4640 v3, by contrast, is the choice when raw multi-threaded compute is the priority and power consumption is a secondary concern.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same fundamental architecture, which explains their similar performance. They share the Haswell-EP microarchitecture, are manufactured on Intel's 22 nm process, and use the same Intel Socket 2011-3. Both have a die size of 356 mm² and contain 2,600 million transistors. The memory controllers are also identical, with both supporting DDR4 in a Quad-channel configuration, delivering a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory and provide Gen 3 PCIe with 40 lanes from the CPU.

The key architectural differences are in core configuration and cache. The E5-4640 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the E5-2630 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. This core advantage is the primary reason for the E5-4640 v3's multi-core wins. The L1 and L2 caches are the same on a per-core basis: 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. However, the shared L3 cache differs significantly. The E5-4640 v3 has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-2630 v3 has only 20 MB. This 50% larger L3 cache on the E5-4640 v3 helps it feed its additional cores and may contribute to its narrow lead in single-core tests, as more data can reside closer to the execution units.

The clock speeds are the other major architectural difference. The E5-2630 v3 is clocked higher, with a base of 2.40 GHz and a boost of 3.20 GHz, while the E5-4640 v3 runs at 1.90 GHz base and 2.60 GHz boost. This 700 MHz boost clock advantage for the E5-2630 v3 is substantial on paper, but the benchmark results show that it is not enough to overcome the E5-4640 v3's core and cache advantages in Cinebench. The release dates differ, with the E5-2630 v3 launching on 2014-09-07 and the E5-4640 v3 launching later on 2015-05-31, but both are now end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: How much faster is the E5-4640 v3 in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The E5-4640 v3 scores 8816, which is 1.7% higher than the E5-2630 v3's score of 8668.

Q: Does the E5-2630 v3 have a higher boost clock?

A: Yes, the E5-2630 v3 has a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, compared to 2.60 GHz for the E5-4640 v3. Its base clock is also higher at 2.40 GHz versus 1.90 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The E5-4640 v3 has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-2630 v3 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor consumes less power?

A: The E5-2630 v3 has a TDP of 85 watts, which is lower than the E5-4640 v3's TDP of 105 watts.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory in a Quad-channel configuration with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and both support ECC memory.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 is the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, albeit by narrow margins of around 1.7%. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide a tangible advantage in multi-threaded rendering workloads, as evidenced by its higher scores in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. Anyone building a workstation for 3D rendering, video editing, or other heavily threaded applications should choose the E5-4640 v3 based on these results. Its larger 30 MB L3 cache also gives it a slight edge in single-threaded performance, making it the better all-around performer.

The Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 is the choice for specific scenarios. Its higher clock speeds (2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost) may benefit older, less parallelized software that relies on raw clock speed. More importantly, its 85-watt TDP makes it significantly more power-efficient than the E5-4640 v3's 105-watt TDP. In a large server cluster where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical constraints, the E5-2630 v3 offers a better performance-per-watt profile, even if its absolute performance is lower. It is also the more sensible choice for a dual-socket system where the cost and cooling requirements of two 105-watt processors could be prohibitive.

In short, choose the E5-4640 v3 for maximum compute throughput, and choose the E5-2630 v3 for its clock speed and power efficiency. Both parts are end-of-life, but the data shows they remain capable of comparable performance in the mid-range server market. The E5-4640 v3 is the winner on raw performance, while the E5-2630 v3 is the winner on operational efficiency.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-4640 v3 | Intel Xeon E5-2630 v3 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 12 | 8 |

| Threads | 24 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 1.90 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.60 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 105 W | 85 W |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Release Date | 2015-05-31 | 2014-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $2859 | $667 |