Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results tell a remarkably consistent story: the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 wins every single head-to-head test against the Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3, though the margins are uniformly narrow. Across six Cinebench runs spanning R15, R20, and R23, the E5-2658A v3 claims victory in both single-core and multi-core workloads, with delta percentages hovering at 1.1% to 1.4%. That is not a dramatic gap, but it is a persistent one.

Starting with multi-core performance, the E5-2658A v3 posts a Cinebench R15 score of 1274 against the E5-2678 v3's 1257, a 1.4% advantage. In R20 multi-core, the spread widens slightly in absolute terms: 5311 versus 5239, again a 1.4% delta. The R23 multi-core result shows the same pattern, with the E5-2658A v3 reaching 12647 and the E5-2678 v3 trailing at 12474. The single-core results are closer in percentage terms but still favor the E5-2658A v3 across the board. In R15 single-core, it scores 179 against 177 (1.1%); in R20, 749 against 739 (1.4%); and in R23, 1785 against 1761 (1.4%).

What does this mean in practice? The E5-2658A v3 is consistently ahead, but never by a margin that would fundamentally change workload completion times. A 1.4% difference in multi-core rendering translates to roughly forty seconds saved per hour of compute — noticeable in batch workloads, negligible in interactive use. The data suggests these are effectively peer processors, with the E5-2658A v3 holding a slim but genuine edge in every measured scenario.

Looking at the broader benchmark landscape, the E5-2658A v3's average benchmark score is 3658, placing it in the 56th percentile of all CPUs. The E5-2678 v3 averages 3608, sitting at the 55th percentile. The 50-point gap in average score is modest but consistent with the head-to-head results. Both processors land in the same performance tier, surrounded by very different rivals — the E5-2658A v3 compares closely to the Intel Core i9-10885H (3651, +0.2%) and the Intel Core i3-13100E (3668, -0.3%), while the E5-2678 v3 sits near the Intel Xeon E-2286G (3610, -0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 (3613, -0.1%).

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 wins all three multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15, it scores 1274 versus 1257; in R20, 5311 versus 5239; and in R23, 12647 versus 12474. Each win represents a 1.4% advantage for the E5-2658A v3.

Q: Is there any test where the E5-2678 v3 comes out ahead?

A: No. Across the six head-to-head benchmarks, the E5-2678 v3 wins zero tests. The E5-2658A v3 takes all six, with single-core deltas of 1.1% to 1.4% and multi-core deltas of 1.4% throughout.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to modern mainstream processors?

A: The E5-2658A v3 averages 3658, placing it near the Intel Core i9-10885H (3651, 0.2% difference) and the Intel Core i3-13100E (3668, -0.3% difference). The E5-2678 v3 averages 3608, landing close to the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 (3613, -0.1%) and the AMD Ryzen 7 2700E (3603, 0.1% difference).

Q: Do both CPUs support the same memory types?

A: No, this is a key difference. The E5-2658A v3 supports DDR4 memory only, while the E5-2678 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both use a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and support ECC memory.

Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?

A: The E5-2678 v3 has higher clocks: 2.50 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The E5-2658A v3 runs at 2.20 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. Despite the E5-2678 v3's clock advantage, the E5-2658A v3 still wins every benchmark.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life products. They are built on the Haswell-EP architecture using a 22 nm process, and both fit the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture, which makes their performance differential particularly interesting. They are both Haswell-EP parts built on Intel's 22 nm process node, manufactured by Intel, with identical transistor counts of 2,600 million and the same die size of 356 mm². The codename is Haswell-EP for both, and they belong to the same Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) generation.

The cache hierarchy is identical across both CPUs. Each core gets 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache, with a shared 30 MB L3 cache. Neither processor features 3D V-Cache. Both have 12 cores and 24 threads, and both lack integrated graphics. They share the same PCIe implementation: Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory support is present on both, and both have locked multipliers.

The architectural differences are minimal. The most notable divergence is memory compatibility. The E5-2658A v3 supports DDR4 only, while the E5-2678 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. Both run a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. This means the E5-2678 v3 offers more flexibility for older DDR3 platforms, while the E5-2658A v3 is restricted to DDR4 builds.

The part numbers differ — SR27T for the E5-2658A v3 and SR20Z for the E5-2678 v3 — but this is a minor identifier rather than a meaningful architectural distinction. The core design, cache layout, and process node are all shared. The performance gap must therefore come down to binning and clock behavior rather than architectural superiority.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several specification fields, though the core configuration remains constant. Both have 12 cores and 24 threads, but the clock speeds tell a different story. The E5-2678 v3 runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, while the E5-2658A v3 operates at 2.20 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost. The E5-2678 v3 holds a 0.30 GHz advantage in both base and boost clocks.

Thermal design power differs as well. The E5-2658A v3 is rated at 105 W TDP, while the E5-2678 v3 draws a higher 120 W TDP. This is notable because the E5-2658A v3 achieves better benchmark scores despite a lower TDP and lower clocks, suggesting more efficient binning or different power management behavior.

Memory support is another differentiator. The E5-2658A v3 supports DDR4 only, whereas the E5-2678 v3 supports DDR3 and DDR4. Both use quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and support ECC. The socket is identical for both: Intel Socket 2011-3.

The launch MSRP is listed for the E5-2658A v3 at $1832, while no launch MSRP is available for the E5-2678 v3. Both parts are end-of-life and have locked multipliers. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation. The E5-2658A v3's part number is SR27T, and the E5-2678 v3's is SR20Z. Process node, foundry, transistors, die size, and cache configuration are identical across both CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark results, the E5-2658A v3 wins everywhere. It takes all six head-to-head tests, covering both single-core and multi-core scenarios in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The data shows no workload category where the E5-2678 v3 pulls ahead. If you are choosing purely on performance, the E5-2658A v3 is the pick for rendering, multi-threaded productivity, and single-threaded responsiveness alike.

However, the E5-2678 v3 has its own set of advantages that are not captured in benchmark scores. Its higher clock speeds — 2.50 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost — may make it a better fit for workloads that are sensitive to clock frequency in ways Cinebench does not fully represent. More importantly, its support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory gives it a compatibility edge for builders reusing existing DDR3 modules or working with older platform configurations. The E5-2658A v3 is locked to DDR4, which could be a limiting factor depending on your memory inventory.

The E5-2678 v3 also carries a higher TDP of 120 W, which might indicate it is designed to sustain higher clock loads, even if the benchmark results do not reflect an advantage. For users with adequate cooling, the higher TDP is not a drawback; it simply means more power draw for what the data shows is slightly lower performance.

The E5-2658A v3's wins are consistent but small. If your workload is dominated by Cinebench-style rendering, you will see a marginal but real improvement with the E5-2658A v3. If you value memory flexibility or have a DDR3-based system, the E5-2678 v3 remains a viable option despite trailing in every benchmark.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 in every measured test. It wins six out of six head-to-head benchmarks, with a 1.4% advantage in multi-core workloads and a 1.1% to 1.4% edge in single-core tests. Its average benchmark score of 3658 versus 3608 puts it one percentile higher (56th versus 55th) among all CPUs. For anyone prioritizing raw performance, the E5-2658A v3 is the clear choice.

That said, the margins are thin enough that the E5-2678 v3 should not be dismissed outright. It offers higher base and boost clocks, which could matter in frequency-sensitive applications not captured by these benchmarks. Its dual memory support for DDR3 and DDR4 is a genuine practical advantage for certain builds. And its higher 120 W TDP, while not helping in these tests, may indicate different sustained-load characteristics in specific server environments.

The deciding factor depends on your priorities. If you want the best Cinebench scores and are building on a DDR4 platform, take the E5-2658A v3 — it wins every test and does so at a lower TDP. If you need DDR3 compatibility or believe higher clocks will benefit your specific workload, the E5-2678 v3 is a reasonable alternative, provided you accept a small but consistent performance deficit. The data does not support choosing the E5-2678 v3 on performance grounds alone; it only makes sense when external factors like memory type or platform constraints come into play.