Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 and Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 are two Haswell-EP server processors that share the same silicon foundation yet arrive at different design points. Both are end-of-life parts built on Intel's 22 nm process, both use Socket 2011-3, and both landed in the 50th percentile of the database's aggregate CPU rankings. Yet the recorded benchmark data shows a clean sweep for one of them: the lower-core E5-2640 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, edging out its 12-core sibling by margins of roughly 1 to 2 percent. This page walks through the FAQ, the architectural common ground, the benchmark results, the specification splits, and where each chip still makes sense.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in the benchmark database?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 wins every head-to-head test. It leads the Cinebench R15 multi-core test 942 to 928, the R20 multi-core test 3926 to 3869, and the R23 multi-core test 9348 to 9212. The margins are narrow, between about 1 and 2 percent, but they are consistent across every test.

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

A: The E5-2640 v3 leads here too: 132 versus 131 in Cinebench R15, 553 versus 546 in R20, and 1319 versus 1300 in R23. The single-core gap tracks the clock speed difference, since the E5-2640 v3 boosts to 3.40 GHz while the E5-4650 v3 tops out at 2.80 GHz.

Q: How many cores and threads does each have?

A: The E5-2640 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The E5-4650 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: Are these CPUs still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The E5-2640 v3 was released in September 2014 and the E5-4650 v3 followed in May 2015.

Q: How does each rank against the full database?

A: Both sit in the 50th percentile versus all CPUs. The E5-2640 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2703, statistically tied with the Intel Core i7-1185G7E (2703), a hair ahead of the Core i7-8700T (2701) and the Core i5-1345UE (2698), and marginally behind the Xeon E-2226G (2709). The E5-4650 v3 averages 2664, essentially level with the Core i7-9750HF (2662), the Core i7-9700T (2668), the Core i5-9500F (2670), and the Core i7-1365UE (2677).

Q: What was each chip's launch MSRP?

A: The E5-2640 v3 launched at $939 MSRP. The E5-4650 v3 launched at $2838 MSRP.

Architecture Differences

In broad terms these are the same architecture. Both are Haswell parts, codenamed Haswell-EP, fabbed by Intel on a 22 nm process, with 2,600 million transistors packed into a 356 mm² die. The L1 cache is identical at 64 KB per core and L2 is identical at 256 KB per core. Both support DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus with ECC, and both expose 40 CPU PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Neither has integrated graphics, neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both use Socket 2011-3, so platform compatibility between the two is a non-issue.

The divergence is in how the silicon is configured. The E5-4650 v3 carries 12 cores and 24 threads against the E5-2640 v3's 8 cores and 16 threads, and it pairs the extra cores with a larger shared L3 slice: 30 MB versus 20 MB. That extra cache is the classic Haswell-EP scaling lever, giving the bigger chip more room to feed its additional cores and to absorb memory access latency in multi-socket-style server workloads.

The other architectural difference runs the other way: clocks. The E5-2640 v3 runs a 2.60 GHz base and a 3.40 GHz boost, while the E5-4650 v3 runs 2.10 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. Intel traded frequency for core count and cache here, and that trade defines everything that follows in the benchmark data. The E5-4650 v3 also carries a higher thermal envelope, 105 W against 90 W, which reflects the larger core and cache configuration.

One final platform-level difference is worth flagging qualitatively from the naming and positioning: the E5-4650 v3 sits in a tier built for larger multi-processor systems, which is consistent with its higher launch MSRP and its configuration emphasis on core count over clock speed. The database does not record additional multi-socket benchmark data for this comparison, so the single-CPU numbers below tell only part of the story.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head record is unambiguous: six tests, six wins for the E5-2640 v3.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2640 v3 scores 942 against 928, a 1.5 percent lead. That result is the headline surprise of this pairing. A 12-core, 24-thread processor losing a multi-core rendering test to an 8-core, 16-thread sibling is unusual, and the explanation is frequency. The E5-2640 v3's 3.40 GHz boost sits well above the E5-4650 v3's 2.80 GHz, enough of a gap to overcome the latter's 50 percent advantage in physical cores in this particular workload, at least as recorded in the database.

The R20 results repeat the pattern. Multi-core: 3926 for the E5-2640 v3, 3869 for the E5-4650 v3, again a 1.5 percent win for the smaller chip. Single-core: 553 versus 546, a 1.3 percent edge. R23 tightens the single-core story only slightly: 1319 versus 1300, a 1.5 percent gap, while multi-core lands at 9348 versus 9212, the same 1.5 percent margin seen in R15 and R20.

Single-core results across R15, R20, and R23 (132 versus 131, 553 versus 546, 1319 versus 1300) confirm that per-thread throughput tracks clock speed almost exactly, with the E5-2640 v3 consistently 0.8 to 1.5 percent ahead.

Context matters when reading these margins. Both chips sit in the 50th percentile versus the full database, and their average scores of 2703 and 2664 are close enough that both land in the same performance neighborhood as modern low-power and mid-range parts like the Core i7-8700T (2701) and Core i5-9500F (2670). In other words, this is not a blowout; it is a narrowly decided contest that the higher-clocked part wins on consistency.

The caveat: these are rendering benchmarks, which favor sustained all-core frequency. The E5-4650 v3's extra cores, extra threads, larger 30 MB L3 cache, and higher 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth (versus 59.7 GB/s) are assets that Cinebench does not fully exercise. Server consolidation, heavily threaded throughput workloads, and cache-sensitive applications are exactly the cases where the bigger chip's configuration was designed to pay off, and the database does not record those scenarios in this head-to-head set.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in only a handful of fields:

• Cores/threads: 8 cores, 16 threads (E5-2640 v3) versus 12 cores, 24 threads (E5-4650 v3)
• Base clock: 2.60 GHz versus 2.10 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.40 GHz versus 2.80 GHz
• TDP: 90 W versus 105 W
• Shared L3 cache: 20 MB versus 30 MB
• Memory bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s versus 68.3 GB/s
• Release date: September 2014 versus May 2015
• Launch MSRP: $939 versus $2838
• Part number: SR205 versus SR22J

Everything else is shared: Haswell architecture, Haswell-EP codename, 22 nm Intel process, 2,600 million transistors, 356 mm² die, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, DDR4 support with ECC, quad-channel memory bus, 40 Gen 3 PCIe lanes, no integrated graphics, locked multipliers, Socket 2011-3, and end-of-life production status.

Where Each One Wins

Where the E5-2640 v3 wins: every measured rendering benchmark, single-core and multi-core alike. With the higher boost clock, it is the better pick for lightly threaded applications, interactive workstation use, and any workload where per-core speed matters more than thread count. It also runs at a lower TDP and carries a far lower launch MSRP, which at $939 versus $2838 meant it delivered strictly better measured rendering performance at roughly a third of the launch asking figure. For a single-socket rendering or general-purpose box, the data makes this the straightforward choice.

Where the E5-4650 v3 wins: workloads the recorded benchmarks do not capture. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, 30 MB of shared L3 cache, and 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth suit it to heavily parallel server duties: virtualization host density, many concurrent users, database services, and throughput-oriented tasks that scale with thread count and cache size rather than per-core frequency. The higher 105 W envelope and its tier positioning signal a part built for capacity-oriented deployments rather than peak per-thread speed.

The verdict: in the database's measured head-to-head, the E5-2640 v3 wins 6 tests to 0, by margins of 0.8 to 1.5 percent. But the two chips answer different questions. If the question is single-CPU rendering and responsiveness, the E5-2640 v3 is the answer in every recorded test. If the question is thread capacity, cache, and memory bandwidth for server-class workloads, the E5-4650 v3 brings hardware the benchmarks here simply do not reward. Both now sit mid-pack against the modern field, and both are end-of-life, so either is a legacy-platform consideration rather than a new-build option.