Intel Xeon E5-2650 v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 Comparison

These two server processors share the same core and thread count, the same socket, and even the same 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The real differences lie in the silicon generation and the clocks attached to it. The E5-2676 v3 is a Haswell-EP part built on Intel's 22 nm process, while the E5-2650 v4 is a Broadwell-EP chip on the newer 14 nm node. That process shrink is significant: the Broadwell die is much smaller at 246 mm² compared to the Haswell part's 356 mm², yet it packs more transistors—3,400 million versus 2,600 million. The newer part also runs cooler on paper, with a 105 W TDP against the older chip's 120 W, and it supports DDR4 memory only, whereas the Haswell part can handle both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use a quad-channel memory bus with identical 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, and both feature 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The feature set is otherwise aligned: both use PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, both support ECC memory, and both are now end-of-life products from Intel.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results tell a story of narrow but consistent margins. Across every single Cinebench test in the data, the E5-2676 v3 comes out ahead, though the differences are often within the noise of a single run. The largest gap appears in the Cinebench R15 multicore test, where the older Haswell chip scores 1102 against the Broadwell part's 1098—a 0.4% lead. That is the only test where the deltaPct exceeds 0.3%. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the lead shrinks to 0.3%, with scores of 4592 and 4579, respectively. The same 0.3% margin appears in R23 multicore, where the E5-2676 v3 scores 10935 and the E5-2650 v4 scores 10904.

Single-core performance is essentially a dead heat. In Cinebench R15 single-core, both chips score exactly 155, with the deltaPct listed as 0. In R20 single-core, the E5-2676 v3 edges ahead 648 to 646, a 0.3% difference. R23 single-core repeats that pattern: 1543 versus 1539, again a 0.3% margin. The overall average benchmark score reflects this closeness—the E5-2676 v3 sits at 3163, while the E5-2650 v4 is just 0.3% behind at 3154. Both chips land in the 53rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier relative to everything else. The head-to-head table lists six wins for the E5-2676 v3 and zero for the E5-2650 v4, but those wins are all by margins of 0.4% or less.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each chip puts the scores in context. The E5-2676 v3's closest competitor is the AMD Ryzen 5 5560U, which has an average score of 3162—a 0% difference. The E5-2650 v4's nearest rival is the same Ryzen 5 5560U, with a deltaPct of -0.3%. In other words, both Xeons are effectively indistinguishable from a mid-range AMD mobile chip in this aggregate metric. The Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U and Ryzen 3 5300GE also hover within 0.1% to 0.3% of both Xeons. These are not chips that dominate their competition; they are firmly in the middle of the pack.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the E5-2676 v3 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are so slim that they have no practical significance for real workloads. A 0.3% to 0.4% difference in Cinebench scores will not be perceptible in any application. The E5-2676 v3 is the better chip on paper, with a higher base clock of 2.40 GHz versus 2.20 GHz and a higher boost clock of 3.00 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, and those clocks translate directly into the slight benchmark edge. However, the E5-2650 v4 counters with a more efficient 14 nm process, a lower 105 W TDP, and a smaller die—advantages that matter for dense server deployments where heat and power are constraints. If you are choosing strictly by the benchmark numbers, pick the E5-2676 v3. If you care about the efficiency envelope and the newer architecture, the E5-2650 v4 is the more modern part, and its performance is within 0.4% in every test. Neither chip has a meaningful advantage in single-threaded work; both are tied at 155 in R15 single-core, and the R20 and R23 single-core differences are 2 points or less. For multi-threaded workloads, the E5-2676 v3 is the winner, but calling it a "win" when the margin is under half a percent is generous.

Specification Differences

The two processors share their core layout—12 cores and 24 threads each—but differ in nearly every other physical attribute. The E5-2676 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process, while the E5-2650 v4 uses Broadwell-EP on 14 nm. The transistor counts reflect the process change: 2,600 million for Haswell versus 3,400 million for Broadwell, with die sizes of 356 mm² and 246 mm², respectively. Clock speeds favor the older part, with a 2.40 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost against the newer chip's 2.20 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. The TDP favors the newer part, 105 W versus 120 W. Memory support is a key differentiator: the E5-2676 v3 accepts both DDR3 and DDR4, while the E5-2650 v4 is DDR4-only. Both use quad-channel memory and deliver 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The E5-2650 v4 carries a launch MSRP of $1166; no launch MSRP is listed for the E5-2676 v3. Both use the same Intel Socket 2011-3, have 30 MB of shared L3 cache, support ECC memory, and offer 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Part numbers are SR1Y5 for the Haswell part and SR2N3 for the Broadwell part. The E5-2650 v4 has a release date of 2016-03-15; the release date for the E5-2676 v3 is not listed. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2676 v3 boosts to 3.00 GHz, which is 0.10 GHz higher than the E5-2650 v4's 2.90 GHz boost.

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory types?

A: No. The E5-2676 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the E5-2650 v4 supports DDR4 only. Both use a quad-channel memory bus.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The E5-2676 v3 has an average benchmark score of 3163, while the E5-2650 v4 scores 3154. This puts the E5-2650 v4 at a 0.3% deficit relative to the E5-2676 v3.

Q: In which Cinebench test is the E5-2650 v4 competitive?

A: The E5-2650 v4 matches the E5-2676 v3 exactly in Cinebench R15 single-core, with both scoring 155. In all other tests, it trails by 0.3% to 0.4%.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient according to the TDP figures?

A: The E5-2650 v4 has a lower TDP of 105 W, compared to 120 W for the E5-2676 v3, despite having more transistors.

Q: How do these chips compare to a typical AMD Ryzen processor?

A: Both Xeons are within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 5560U's average score of 3162. The Ryzen 7 PRO 5850U scores 3159, and the Ryzen 3 5300GE scores 3160, placing all these processors in the same performance bracket.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-2676 v3 wins in raw performance across the board, but its victories are narrow. It takes the multicore crown in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, with leads of 0.4%, 0.3%, and 0.3%, respectively. It also wins the single-core tests in R20 and R23 by 0.3% margins, and ties in R15 single-core. The higher base and boost clocks—2.40 GHz and 3.00 GHz against 2.20 GHz and 2.90 GHz—are the reason for these results. If your workload is bound by clock speed and you are not concerned about power draw, this is the part to pick.

The E5-2650 v4 wins in efficiency and architectural modernity. Its 14 nm process and 105 W TDP make it the better choice for systems where thermal density and power budgets matter, such as densely packed servers. It also offers a smaller die (246 mm² versus 356 mm²) and a higher transistor count (3,400 million versus 2,600 million), which indicates a more complex but more efficient design. The E5-2650 v4 is the only one of the two with a listed launch MSRP of $1166, but the E5-2676 v3 has no listed price to compare against. For new builds, the DDR4-only memory support of the E5-2650 v4 is simpler, while the E5-2676 v3's dual DDR3/DDR4 support offers more flexibility with existing memory inventory. Neither chip is a dominant performer—both sit at the 53rd percentile—so the decision comes down to whether you prioritize the slight benchmark edge of the E5-2676 v3 or the lower power draw and newer process of the E5-2650 v4.