Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 and Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 are both 22 nm Haswell-EP server processors on the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, and benchmark results show they are extremely close in performance. Across the entire suite of Cinebench tests, the E5-2698B v3 wins every single comparison, yet the margin is consistently slim, never exceeding a 1.2% delta. The average benchmark score for the E5-2698B v3 is 4004, while the E5-2669 v3 trails at 3959, placing both chips at the 57th percentile among all CPUs. This is a competition defined by minor edges rather than decisive victories.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3, which secures 6 wins out of 6 head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The largest margin is found in the Cinebench R15 multicore test, where the E5-2698B v3 scores 1395 against the E5-2669 v3’s 1379, a 1.2% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore, with the E5-2698B v3 posting 5814 versus 5749, a 1.1% lead. In the most demanding workload, Cinebench R23 multicore, the E5-2698B v3 reaches 13843, while the E5-2669 v3 achieves 13690, again a 1.1% difference.

Single-core performance tells a nearly identical story. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the E5-2698B v3 scores 196, just 1% ahead of the E5-2669 v3’s 194. The Cinebench R20 single-core test shows the E5-2698B v3 at 820 versus 811, a 1.1% edge. Finally, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the E5-2698B v3 records 1954, with the E5-2669 v3 at 1932, also a 1.1% difference.

Interpreting these numbers, the E5-2698B v3 holds a consistent but modest advantage across every test. The margins are so tight that they fall within run-to-run variance for many workloads, yet the direction is unambiguous. The E5-2698B v3’s lead is slightly more pronounced in multicore tests (1.2% in R15) than in single-core (1.0% in R15), suggesting its additional cores provide a measurable, though small, scaling benefit. The E5-2669 v3, with its higher base clock of 2.30 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, manages to stay close but cannot overcome the E5-2698B v3’s superior boost clock of 3.40 GHz versus 3.10 GHz and its 16-core versus 12-core configuration.

The Verdict

From a strictly performance standpoint, the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 is the superior processor in this comparison. It wins every benchmark in the data set, and its average benchmark score of 4004 places it 0.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon E-2336 and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Xeon D-2733NT, according to its nearest rival comparisons. The E5-2669 v3, by contrast, sits at 3959, essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 3 7330U, which shows a 0% delta.

The verdict, however, is nuanced by the scale of the victory. A 1.1% to 1.2% lead in multicore workloads is not a transformative difference; it means the E5-2698B v3 completes a long-running render job only slightly faster than the E5-2669 v3. For users who already own a system built around the E5-2669 v3, the data does not justify an upgrade, as the performance gain is marginal. For those selecting between the two for a new build, the E5-2698B v3 is the clear choice if maximum throughput is the goal, as it delivers a win in every single test without exception.

The E5-2669 v3 is not without its merits. Its lower TDP of 120 watts versus 135 watts and its higher base clock of 2.30 GHz make it a more power-efficient option in lightly threaded scenarios where the boost clock is not sustained. But the benchmark data is unmistakable: the E5-2698B v3 is faster in every measured category, making it the recommended part for workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering performance.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture, as both are built on the Haswell-EP microarchitecture using a 22 nm process node at Intel’s foundry. Each chip integrates 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The similarities extend to the memory controller, with both supporting quad-channel memory and offering 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, as well as PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU.

The core difference lies in the configuration. The E5-2698B v3 features 16 cores and 32 threads, while the E5-2669 v3 is equipped with 12 cores and 24 threads. This core count disparity directly impacts the L3 cache: the E5-2698B v3 has 40 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the E5-2669 v3 has 30 MB. Both chips maintain identical per-core L1 and L2 caches, at 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively.

Clock speeds also differ. The E5-2698B v3 has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the E5-2669 v3 starts at a higher 2.30 GHz base but tops out at 3.10 GHz boost. This means the E5-2669 v3 runs faster at idle or low-load conditions, but the E5-2698B v3 has the higher ceiling for single-threaded bursts. Memory support diverges as well, with the E5-2698B v3 supporting DDR4 only, while the E5-2669 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, offering greater flexibility for existing server infrastructure.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multicore performance?

A: The E5-2698B v3 scores 13843 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 1.1% ahead of the E5-2669 v3’s score of 13690.

Q: Does the E5-2669 v3 have a higher boost clock than the E5-2698B v3?

A: No, the E5-2698B v3 has a boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the E5-2669 v3 has a lower boost clock of 3.10 GHz.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for both processors?

A: Both the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 and the Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 offer 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth with quad-channel support.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 has a TDP of 120 watts, which is lower than the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3’s 135 watts.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel’s 22 nm process node and use the Haswell-EP architecture.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 wins in every benchmark category recorded, making it the outright performance leader. Its advantages are most pronounced in multicore workloads, where its 16 cores and 40 MB of L3 cache provide a 1.2% edge in Cinebench R15 and a 1.1% edge in both Cinebench R20 and R23. This makes it the preferred choice for heavily threaded applications such as video rendering, scientific computing, and virtualization, where the extra cores can be fully utilized. The E5-2698B v3 also leads in single-core tests, with a 1.0% to 1.1% margin, meaning it holds an edge even in lightly threaded tasks.

The Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3’s sole victories come in efficiency and flexibility, not raw performance. Its TDP of 120 watts is 15 watts lower than the E5-2698B v3, which can translate to reduced cooling requirements and lower operational heat in dense server environments. Additionally, its support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory gives it an advantage in legacy systems where DDR3 modules are already installed, potentially lowering the cost of a platform migration. The E5-2669 v3 also has a higher base clock of 2.30 GHz, which means it starts at a higher frequency and may feel more responsive in short bursts before the boost clock engages.

Specification Differences

The following table highlights only the fields where the two processors differ:

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 | Intel Xeon E5-2669 v3 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 16 | 12 |

| Threads | 32 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| TDP | 135 W | 120 W |

| L3 Cache | 40 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3, DDR4 |

| Part Number | SR21T | SR1XU |

Both processors share the same socket, architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, L1 and L2 cache sizes, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, and lack of integrated graphics. The E5-2698B v3 compensates for its lower base clock with a higher boost clock and more cores, while the E5-2669 v3 offers a higher base clock, lower TDP, and broader memory compatibility.