Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 vs Intel Xeon Silver 4116 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 and the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 are both 12-core, 24-thread server processors, but they come from different eras of Intel’s roadmap. The Silver 4116 is a Skylake-SP part built on a 14 nm process, while the E5-2658A v3 is a Haswell-EP chip on 22 nm. The database records six head-to-head Cinebench results, and the Silver 4116 wins all six. The margins are consistent, ranging from 2.1% to 2.2% across every test. This is not a dramatic generational leap in raw rendering performance, but the newer architecture does hold a measurable edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The following sections break down where each processor excels, who should choose which, and what the architectural differences mean in practice.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench scores show a uniform pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Silver 4116 scores 1301 against the E5-2658A v3’s 1274, a 2.1% advantage. The single-core R15 result is 183 versus 179, a 2.2% lead for the Silver 4116. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows 5421 for the Silver 4116 and 5311 for the E5-2658A v3, again a 2.1% gap. The single-core R20 result is 765 versus 749, also 2.1%. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 12908 against 12647, a 2.1% difference, and the single-core score is 1822 versus 1785, another 2.1% edge. Every benchmark in the database follows this same narrow margin, indicating that the Silver 4116’s architectural refinements translate into a small but consistent performance uplift across all Cinebench versions.

The percentile ranking for both CPUs is identical at 56, meaning they sit at the same position relative to all other processors in the database. This is an important context: despite the newer process node and architecture of the Silver 4116, neither chip dramatically outperforms the other in overall standing. The average benchmark score for the Silver 4116 is 3733, while the E5-2658A v3 averages 3658. That difference, roughly 2%, aligns with the head-to-head deltas. The nearest rivals for the Silver 4116 include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650GE with an average score of 3732 and a delta of 0%, the Intel Core i5-11600T at 3742 with a delta of -0.2%, and the Intel Core i5-11260H at 3721 with a delta of 0.3%. For the E5-2658A v3, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i9-10885H at 3651 with a delta of 0.2%, the Intel Core i3-13100E at 3668 with a delta of -0.3%, and the AMD EPYC 7251 at 3671 with a delta of -0.4%. These rival comparisons show that both CPUs sit in a tightly packed performance cluster, where a 1% swing can change the ranking.

The consistency of the 2.1% delta across all six tests is notable. It suggests that the Silver 4116’s advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general improvement in instruction efficiency or clock behavior. The Silver 4116 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, while the E5-2658A v3 has a base of 2.20 GHz and a boost of 2.90 GHz. So the older chip starts at a higher base frequency, but the newer chip boosts higher. The Silver 4116’s higher boost clock likely explains part of the single-core wins, while its newer Skylake architecture likely contributes to the multi-core gains even though both have the same core and thread counts.

Where Each One Wins

The Silver 4116 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is straightforward. For any Cinebench workload, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the Silver 4116 is the faster processor. The margins are small, but they are present in all six tests. If a workload relies heavily on single-thread performance, such as certain legacy applications or lightly threaded tasks, the Silver 4116’s 2.2% single-core lead in R15 and 2.1% lead in R20 and R23 indicate a slight but real advantage. For multi-threaded rendering, simulation, or batch processing, the Silver 4116 also holds the edge, with 2.1% higher scores across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

The E5-2658A v3 does not have a single win in the database. However, it is not without merits. Its base clock is 2.20 GHz, which is higher than the Silver 4116’s 2.10 GHz. In sustained workloads where boost clocks are not sustained, the higher base frequency could be an asset. The E5-2658A v3 also has a larger L3 cache at 30 MB shared, compared to the Silver 4116’s 16.5 MB shared. This larger cache could benefit workloads that repeatedly access a sizeable working set, reducing memory traffic. The E5-2658A v3’s memory bandwidth is recorded as 68.3 GB/s with quad-channel DDR4 support, while the Silver 4116’s memory bandwidth is not listed in the database. The E5-2658A v3 also has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Silver 4116’s PCIe configuration is not specified. For systems that require many PCIe devices or high memory throughput, the E5-2658A v3 offers documented capabilities that the Silver 4116 does not match in the recorded data.

Another consideration is the production status. The E5-2658A v3 is marked as end-of-life, while the Silver 4116 has no such status listed. This means the E5-2658A v3 may be harder to source as new stock, and long-term availability could be a concern. The Silver 4116, being a newer part, is more likely to be available through standard server channels.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Xeon Silver 4116 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw Cinebench performance. It wins all six tests, with margins between 2.1% and 2.2%. The consistency of these results indicates that the Silver 4116 is not just faster in one niche but across the board. For rendering, encoding, or any multi-threaded compute task that scales with cores, the Silver 4116’s 12908 R23 multi-core score beats the E5-2658A v3’s 12647. For single-threaded responsiveness, the Silver 4116’s 1822 R23 single-core score surpasses the E5-2658A v3’s 1785. The newer Skylake architecture and 14 nm process node give it a solid, if modest, advantage over the older Haswell design.

However, the E5-2658A v3 is not irrelevant. Its higher base clock of 2.20 GHz could be beneficial in scenarios where boost clocks are limited by power or thermal constraints. Its 30 MB L3 cache is nearly double the Silver 4116’s 16.5 MB, which could improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The documented 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are concrete specifications that the Silver 4116 lacks in the database. If a system design requires those specific capabilities, the E5-2658A v3 might be the pragmatic pick, especially since it is end-of-life and may be available at lower prices on the used market, though pricing is not discussed here.

The verdict comes down to workload. For pure compute performance as measured by Cinebench, the Silver 4116 is the winner. For systems that need high memory bandwidth, many PCIe lanes, or a larger L3 cache, the E5-2658A v3 has documented advantages. The Silver 4116’s launch MSRP is not recorded, but the E5-2658A v3’s launch MSRP was $1832, stated once here for reference. Both processors occupy the same percentile rank of 56, so neither is a standout in the broader CPU landscape. The Silver 4116 is the safer recommendation for general server workloads that involve rendering or other Cinebench-like tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor performs better in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 scores 12908, while the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 scores 12647. The Silver 4116 is 2.1% faster.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The Silver 4116 has 16.5 MB shared L3 cache, while the E5-2658A v3 has 30 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Silver 4116 boosts to 3.00 GHz, while the E5-2658A v3 boosts to 2.90 GHz.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Silver 4116 has an average benchmark score of 3733, and the E5-2658A v3 has an average of 3658.

Q: Is the E5-2658A v3 still in production?

A: No, the database lists its production status as end-of-life. The Silver 4116 has no such status listed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct generations of Intel Xeon design. The Silver 4116 uses the Skylake-SP architecture, built on a 14 nm process node with 8,000 million transistors. It uses the Intel Socket 3647 and is part of the Xeon Silver (Skylake-SP) generation. The E5-2658A v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture, built on a 22 nm process node with 2,600 million transistors. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 and is part of the Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) generation. The die size for the E5-2658A v3 is recorded as 356 mm², while the Silver 4116’s die size is not listed.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both have 64 KB L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache is 1 MB per core on the Silver 4116 versus 256 KB per core on the E5-2658A v3. The L3 cache is 16.5 MB shared on the Silver 4116 versus 30 MB shared on the E5-2658A v3. This makes the E5-2658A v3 the better candidate for workloads that benefit from a large shared cache, while the Silver 4116’s larger per-core L2 may help with more localized data access.

Memory support is DDR4 for both. The E5-2658A v3 has a quad-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Silver 4116’s memory bus and bandwidth are not specified in the database. PCIe support is documented for the E5-2658A v3 as Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the Silver 4116’s PCIe details are absent. Both support ECC memory, making them suitable for error-sensitive server workloads.

The thermal design power differs: the Silver 4116 is rated at 85 W, while the E5-2658A v3 is rated at 105 W. This means the Silver 4116 is more power-efficient per the recorded TDP, which is a meaningful advantage in dense server deployments where cooling and power budgets are tight. The transistor count also shows the generational gap: 8,000 million for the Silver 4116 versus 2,600 million for the E5-2658A v3, reflecting the denser 14 nm process. The release date for the Silver 4116 is July 2017, while the E5-2658A v3’s release date is not listed, but its end-of-life status implies it is an older platform. The combined effect of these architectural differences is a modest performance edge for the Silver 4116 in Cinebench, paired with lower power consumption, while the E5-2658A v3 retains advantages in cache size and documented memory and PCIe capabilities.