Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 vs Intel Xeon W-1290P Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits this comparison into two very different personalities. The Intel Xeon W-1290P wins 7 of the 8 recorded head-to-head tests, with its dominance concentrated in single-threaded workloads and the Cinebench rendering suite. The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 wins only one test, but it is a significant one: Geekbench multicore, where its 22 cores and 44 threads overpower the W-1290P's 10 cores and 20 threads.

For workloads that rely on high clock speeds and responsive per-core performance, the W-1290P is the clear choice. Its boost clock of 5.30 GHz against the E5-2699A v4's 3.60 GHz explains the massive single-core gap. The Geekbench single-core result shows a 67% advantage for the W-1290P, a margin that makes it the obvious pick for lightly threaded applications, legacy software, or any task where a single thread is the bottleneck.

The E5-2699A v4, however, is built for a different kind of work. Its 22 cores, 44 threads, and 55 MB of shared L3 cache give it a structural advantage in highly parallel workloads that scale well beyond 20 threads. The Geekbench multicore test reflects this: the E5-2699A v4 scores 10118 against the W-1290P's 8852, a 12.5% advantage. That is the only benchmark where the older Broadwell-EP chip comes out ahead, but it signals a real use case: heavily threaded databases, virtual machine hosts, or compilation farms that can saturate dozens of threads.

The Cinebench results tell a different story. Across R15, R20, and R23, both multicore and single-core, the W-1290P wins every time with a consistent delta of roughly 6.6%. This is notable because Cinebench is a rendering workload that typically rewards core counts. The W-1290P's 10 cores at higher clocks overcome the E5-2699A v4's 22 cores at lower clocks, indicating that the newer Comet Lake architecture extracts more work per clock and per core. The recorded data shows the W-1290P leads by 1915 to 1796 in Cinebench R15 multicore, 7983 to 7486 in R20 multicore, and 19008 to 17826 in R23 multicore.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The W-1290P sits at 5443, the E5-2699A v4 at 5259. Both processors land in the 60th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy a similar overall performance tier. But the distribution of wins matters more than the average: the W-1290P is a generalist with a single-thread edge, while the E5-2699A v4 is a specialist for massive parallelism.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel's server roadmap. The W-1290P is built on the Comet Lake architecture at 10 nm, with a die size of 206 mm². The E5-2699A v4 uses the Broadwell-EP architecture on a 14 nm process, with a much larger die of 456 mm² and 7,200 million transistors. The process node difference is significant: the W-1290P's 10 nm node allows higher clock speeds at a lower TDP of 125 W, while the E5-2699A v4 draws 145 W despite running at much lower clocks.

The physical layout of the two chips reflects their different design goals. The W-1290P uses 10 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The E5-2699A v4 uses 22 cores and 44 threads, with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The E5-2699A v4 has more than twice the cores but runs at roughly two-thirds the boost clock. This is a classic trade-off: wide parallelism versus high frequency.

Cache configurations also differ sharply. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is where the gap appears. The W-1290P has 20 MB of shared L3, while the E5-2699A v4 has 55 MB of shared L3. The larger cache on the E5-2699A v4 is designed to feed its 22 cores and reduce memory traffic in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support is another point of divergence. The W-1290P uses dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s. The E5-2699A v4 uses quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The E5-2699A v4 offers 64% more memory bandwidth, which matters for workloads that stream large datasets. Both support ECC memory, making them suitable for reliability-sensitive environments. PCIe connectivity also differs: the W-1290P provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the E5-2699A v4 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The E5-2699A v4 is the better fit for systems with many PCIe devices, such as GPUs, NVMe storage, or network cards.

The W-1290P includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics P630, while the E5-2699A v4 has no integrated graphics at all. The W-1290P is listed as a mobile market segment part, despite its desktop-oriented Socket 1200, while the E5-2699A v4 is classified as desktop segment on Socket 2011-3. The production status also differs: the W-1290P is active, while the E5-2699A v4 is end-of-life. The release dates are far apart: the W-1290P launched in 2020, the E5-2699A v4 in 2016. The launch MSRP for the W-1290P is $539, while the E5-2699A v4 launched at $4938.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking result in the entire comparison is Geekbench single-core. The W-1290P scores 1703, the E5-2699A v4 scores 1020. That is a 67% advantage for the W-1290P, the largest delta in any recorded test. A 67% single-thread lead is not incremental; it is generational. Any workload that depends on a single thread will feel dramatically faster on the W-1290P.

The Cinebench suite shows a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the W-1290P scores 1915 against 1796, a 6.6% lead. In R15 single-core, it scores 270 against 253, a 6.7% lead. The R20 results repeat the pattern: 7983 versus 7486 in multicore, 1126 versus 1056 in single-core, both at 6.6%. R23 follows with 19008 versus 17826 in multicore and 2683 versus 2516 in single-core, again 6.6%. The consistency of the 6.6% delta across all three Cinebench versions suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The E5-2699A v4's only win comes in Geekbench multicore, where it scores 10118 against 8852. The 12.5% margin is substantial and reflects the value of 22 cores and 44 threads in a benchmark designed to scale across many threads. The quad-channel memory bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth likely contributes to this result, as does the 55 MB L3 cache. Yet even this win does not translate to the Cinebench multicore tests, where the W-1290P's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the core-count deficit.

Looking at the nearest rivals in the database adds context. The W-1290P's average benchmark score of 5443 places it 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920, 0.5% behind the AMD EPYC 7351P, 1.9% ahead of the Intel Core i9-13900TE, and 2% behind the Intel Core i9-10900X. The E5-2699A v4's average of 5259 places it 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-14401E, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-11700B, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i9-10850K, and 0.8% behind the Intel Core i9-9900X. Both chips sit near the center of their respective rival clusters, with no dramatic outliers in either direction.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon W-1290P is the better processor for the majority of workloads. It wins 7 of 8 head-to-head tests, including every Cinebench benchmark and Geekbench single-core. Its 67% single-core advantage and consistent 6.6% Cinebench leads make it the stronger choice for rendering, general productivity, and any application that cannot fully utilize 44 threads. It also does this at a lower TDP of 125 W versus 145 W, with integrated graphics and a smaller die.

The Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 is the right choice only for workloads that specifically benefit from its 22 cores, 44 threads, 55 MB L3 cache, and 76.8 GB/s quad-channel memory bandwidth. The Geekbench multicore win demonstrates that such workloads exist. For users running heavily parallel code that scales linearly with core count, the 12.5% multicore advantage is meaningful. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also make it a better fit for systems with many expansion cards, and its end-of-life status may appeal to buyers seeking a mature, established platform.

The production status is worth noting: the W-1290P is active, while the E5-2699A v4 is end-of-life. For new system builds, the W-1290P is the safer choice. For existing Socket 2011-3 platforms, the E5-2699A v4 remains a viable upgrade if the workload is massively parallel. The Verdict: pick the W-1290P unless you have a specific need for 22 cores and 44 threads, in which case the E5-2699A v4's Geekbench multicore result justifies its existence.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290P, by a wide margin. In Geekbench single-core it scores 1703 against 1020 for the E5-2699A v4, a 67% advantage. It also wins Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests by 6.6% to 6.7%.

Q: Does the E5-2699A v4 win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins Geekbench multicore with a score of 10118 against 8852, a 12.5% advantage. This is the only head-to-head test it wins out of eight.

Q: How do the core counts compare?

A: The E5-2699A v4 has 22 cores and 44 threads, while the W-1290P has 10 cores and 20 threads. The E5-2699A v4 also has 55 MB of shared L3 cache versus 20 MB on the W-1290P.

Q: What are the clock speed differences?

A: The W-1290P has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The E5-2699A v4 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both support ECC memory. The W-1290P uses dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the E5-2699A v4 uses quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The W-1290P is active, while the E5-2699A v4 is end-of-life. The W-1290P also includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P630), while the E5-2699A v4 has none.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W-1290P | Intel Xeon E5-2699A v4 |

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

| Cores | 10 | 22 |

| Threads | 20 | 44 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.30 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 125 W | 145 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Comet Lake | Broadwell-EP |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 206 mm² | 456 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 7,200 million |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 55 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 46.9 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics P630 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Desktop |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2020-05-12 | 2016-10-24 |

| Launch MSRP | $539 | $4938 |

| Part Number | SRKT7 | SR30YQLPM |