Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 vs Intel Xeon W-1290TE Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 and the Intel Xeon W-1290TE occupy different corners of the workstation market, yet benchmark results show a remarkably consistent margin between them. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the older Haswell-EP part edges out the newer Comet Lake chip by roughly 2%. The data tells a clear story: the E5-2678 v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with single-core and multi-core deltas nearly identical. Neither processor pulls away dramatically, but the consistency of the E5-2678 v3’s lead suggests a fundamental advantage in how its resources are organized rather than a clock-speed fluke.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six Cinebench comparisons form a tight cluster of results. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2678 v3 scores 1257 against the W-1290TE’s 1230, a 2.2% advantage. Single-core in the same test shows 177 versus 173, a 2.3% edge for the older chip. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 5239 versus 5129, a 2.1% lead, while single-core comes in at 739 versus 724, also 2.1%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: multi-core 12474 versus 12213 (2.1% ahead) and single-core 1761 versus 1724 (2.1% ahead).

The uniformity of these deltas is noteworthy. A 2.1% to 2.3% gap across three generations of Cinebench, in both single-core and multi-core workloads, indicates that the E5-2678 v3’s advantage is structural, not workload-specific. The W-1290TE has a much higher boost clock (4.50 GHz versus 3.30 GHz), yet it still trails in single-core tests. This points to the E5-2678 v3’s memory subsystem and cache configuration compensating for its lower clocks.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the picture. The E5-2678 v3 posts an average of 3608 across its benchmark suite, while the W-1290TE averages 3532. That 76-point gap places the two chips in the same performance tier, with the E5-2678 v3 sitting at the 55th percentile of all CPUs and the W-1290TE also at the 55th percentile. For context, the E5-2678 v3’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2286G at 3610 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 1700 at 3613 (0.1% behind), the AMD Ryzen 7 2700E at 3603 (0.1% ahead), and the Intel Xeon E-2276G at 3614 (0.2% behind). The W-1290TE’s nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-12300 at 3532 (even), the Intel Core i5-10600K at 3533 (even), the Intel Xeon W-2135 at 3530 (0.1% ahead), and the Intel Core i3-12300T at 3525 (0.2% ahead).

These rival clusters show that both chips are competitive with mid-range desktop and workstation parts from multiple generations. The E5-2678 v3 aligns with six-core Xeon E parts and first-generation Ryzen 7 chips, while the W-1290TE aligns with modern Core i3 and i5 parts plus an older Xeon W. The 2% head-to-head margin is small enough that real-world application performance would likely feel identical, but the benchmark data is unambiguous about the winner.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Xeon W-1290TE records zero wins in the comparisons.

Q: How large is the performance gap in single-core workloads?

A: The E5-2678 v3 leads by 2.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core (177 versus 173) and 2.1% in both Cinebench R20 single-core (739 versus 724) and Cinebench R23 single-core (1761 versus 1724).

Q: How does the multi-core performance compare?

A: The E5-2678 v3 leads by 2.2% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (1257 versus 1230) and 2.1% in both Cinebench R20 multi-core (5239 versus 5129) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (12474 versus 12213).

Q: Do the two processors rank similarly against all CPUs?

A: Yes, both sit at the 55th percentile of all CPUs. The E5-2678 v3 has an average benchmark score of 3608, while the W-1290TE averages 3532.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The E5-2678 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The W-1290TE has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Is the W-1290TE still in production?

A: The W-1290TE is listed as active, with a release date of May 12, 2020. The E5-2678 v3 is end-of-life. The W-1290TE has a launch MSRP of $552.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-2678 v3 wins every benchmark in the comparison, so any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or computation will favor the older chip. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide more parallel execution resources than the W-1290TE’s 10 cores and 20 threads. The consistent 2.1% to 2.3% margins in both single-core and multi-core tests suggest that the E5-2678 v3’s larger L3 cache (30 MB shared versus 20 MB shared) and quad-channel memory bus (68.3 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s) give it an edge in memory-sensitive tasks, even though the W-1290TE boosts much higher.

The W-1290TE, despite losing all six comparisons, offers a different set of advantages. Its 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the E5-2678 v3’s 120 W, making it a better fit for compact or power-constrained systems. It also includes integrated graphics (Intel UHD Graphics P630), which the E5-2678 v3 lacks entirely. For a workstation that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the W-1290TE is the only option between the two. Its active production status and modern 14 nm process also mean it is readily available, while the E5-2678 v3 is end-of-life.

In practice, the E5-2678 v3 is the stronger choice for batch rendering, multi-threaded compilation, or any workload that can use all 24 threads. The W-1290TE makes sense for low-power servers, silent workstations, or systems where the integrated GPU eliminates the need for an add-in card. The benchmark data gives the E5-2678 v3 the performance crown, but the W-1290TE wins on efficiency and platform simplicity.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every core specification. The E5-2678 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the W-1290TE has 10 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are strikingly different: the E5-2678 v3 runs at 2.50 GHz, while the W-1290TE runs at 1800.00 MHz (recorded in the database as 1800.00, which is 1.80 GHz). Boost clocks reverse the order, with the E5-2678 v3 at 3.30 GHz and the W-1290TE at 4.50 GHz. The W-1290TE’s 4.50 GHz boost is the highest clock in this comparison, yet it does not translate into a single-core win.

Thermal design power differs enormously: the E5-2678 v3 is rated at 120 W, while the W-1290TE is rated at 35 W. That 85 W gap makes the W-1290TE far easier to cool and power. The sockets are incompatible: the E5-2678 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the W-1290TE uses Intel Socket 1200. Memory support also differs: the E5-2678 v3 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 over a quad-channel bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the W-1290TE supports only DDR4 over a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

PCIe lanes are another differentiator. The E5-2678 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the W-1290TE provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The integrated graphics situation is one-sided: the W-1290TE includes Intel UHD Graphics P630, and the E5-2678 v3 has no integrated graphics. The E5-2678 v3’s part number is SR20Z, while the W-1290TE’s is SRJFH. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The W-1290TE carries a launch MSRP of $552.

Architecture Differences

The E5-2678 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP codename, using a 22 nm process node from Intel. Its die is 356 mm² and contains 2,600 million transistors. The W-1290TE uses the Comet Lake architecture with a 14 nm process node and a die size of 206 mm²; transistor count is not recorded in the database. The node difference spans two generations of Intel manufacturing, with the older 22 nm part using a larger die to house 12 cores.

Cache layouts differ in capacity but not in per-core structure. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is where they part ways: the E5-2678 v3 has 30 MB shared, while the W-1290TE has 20 MB shared. The 10 MB difference in L3 is likely a factor in the E5-2678 v3’s consistent benchmark wins, especially in multi-threaded workloads where more shared cache reduces memory traffic.

The memory controllers reflect their platform positions. The E5-2678 v3’s quad-channel DDR3/DDR4 support with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth is typical of a high-end server processor from the Haswell-EP generation. The W-1290TE’s dual-channel DDR4 support with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth is characteristic of a mainstream desktop-derived Xeon. Both support ECC, which matters for workstation reliability.

The W-1290TE includes an integrated GPU, the Intel UHD Graphics P630, which is a feature absent from the E5-2678 v3. This reflects the Comet Lake architecture’s integration of graphics into the CPU package, whereas Haswell-EP server chips relied on discrete GPUs or no display output at all. The W-1290TE also has a much lower TDP of 35 W versus 120 W, enabled by the 14 nm process and lower core count.

Production status separates the two as well. The E5-2678 v3 is end-of-life, while the W-1290TE is active and was released on May 12, 2020. This makes the W-1290TE the more practical choice for new system builds, despite its benchmark deficit. The E5-2678 v3, however, remains competitive in raw performance due to its extra cores, larger cache, and higher memory bandwidth. The architecture differences explain why a 2020 chip with a 4.50 GHz boost clock cannot overtake a 2014-era server part with more cores and a wider memory path: benchmark performance depends on the whole platform, not just peak clock speed.