Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 wins every recorded benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all six tests. The margins are consistent, hovering around 3% across both multi-core and single-core workloads. This is a clean sweep, but the size of each victory tells the real story.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-4650 v3 scores 928 against 901 for the E5-4620 v3, a 2.9% advantage. Single-core in the same test shows 131 versus 127, a 3.1% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern repeats: multi-core is 3869 versus 3757 (2.9% ahead), and single-core is 546 versus 530 (2.9% ahead). Cinebench R23 shows 9212 versus 8946 in multi-core and 1300 versus 1263 in single-core, with deltas of 2.9% and 2.8% respectively.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Whether the workload scales across all cores or relies on a single thread, the E5-4650 v3 maintains roughly the same lead. This suggests the advantage is structural, not workload-dependent. The E5-4620 v3 never closes the gap in any test, and the E5-4650 v3 never extends it beyond 3.1%.

Looking at the broader database picture, the E5-4620 v3 sits at the 49th percentile among all CPUs, while the E5-4650 v3 sits at the 50th. Their average benchmark scores are 2587 and 2664 respectively. The nearest rivals for the E5-4620 v3 include the Intel Xeon E-2174G at 2588 (0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS at 2573 (0.5% delta). For the E5-4650 v3, the Intel Core i7-9750HF at 2662 is just 0.1% behind, and the Intel Core i7-9700T at 2668 is 0.1% ahead. Both processors sit in a dense pack of comparable silicon, but the E5-4650 v3 edges slightly higher in the overall distribution.

What the head-to-head data does not show is any scenario where the E5-4620 v3 pulls ahead. The wins column is 0 for the E5-4620 v3 and 6 for the E5-4650 v3. Every Cinebench generation tested, R15, R20, and R23, confirms the same ordering.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental design. They are built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, using Intel's 22 nm process node. The die size is identical at 356 mm², and transistor count is the same at 2,600 million. Both use the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, support DDR4 memory in quad-channel configuration, and provide PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics, and both are locked, with no unlocked multiplier.

The core counts differ. The E5-4620 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the E5-4650 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. This 20% increase in core count is the primary architectural differentiator. Clock speeds also favor the E5-4650 v3: its base clock is 2.10 GHz versus 2.00 GHz, and its boost clock is 2.80 GHz versus 2.60 GHz. These are modest clock advantages, but they compound with the extra cores.

Cache allocation follows the core count. The L1 cache is 64 KB per core for both, and L2 is 256 KB per core for both. The L3 cache, however, scales with the larger die configuration: the E5-4620 v3 has 25 MB shared, while the E5-4650 v3 has 30 MB shared. That 5 MB difference gives the E5-4650 v3 more room for shared data across its additional cores.

Memory bandwidth also differs. The E5-4620 v3 is rated at 59.7 GB/s, while the E5-4650 v3 reaches 68.3 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server and workstation parts. The memory bus is quad-channel in both cases, so the bandwidth gap comes from the higher memory clock support or memory controller configuration on the E5-4650 v3, as reflected in the recorded specifications.

Both processors were released on the same date in May 2015 and are now end-of-life. Their part numbers differ, SR22K for the E5-4620 v3 and SR22J for the E5-4650 v3. The launch MSRP for the E5-4620 v3 was $1668, and for the E5-4650 v3 it was $2838.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Is the E5-4650 v3 faster in every benchmark?

A: Yes, the recorded head-to-head data shows the E5-4650 v3 winning all six Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 2.8% to 3.1% over the E5-4620 v3.

Q: Do these processors use the same socket?

A: Yes, both use the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The E5-4620 v3 has 25 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-4650 v3 has 30 MB, a 5 MB difference.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life in the database.

Q: Do they support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory and use DDR4 in a quad-channel configuration.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in these recorded fields:

• Cores: 10 (E5-4620 v3) versus 12 (E5-4650 v3)
• Threads: 20 (E5-4620 v3) versus 24 (E5-4650 v3)
• Base Clock: 2.00 GHz (E5-4620 v3) versus 2.10 GHz (E5-4650 v3)
• Boost Clock: 2.60 GHz (E5-4620 v3) versus 2.80 GHz (E5-4650 v3)
• L3 Cache: 25 MB shared (E5-4620 v3) versus 30 MB shared (E5-4650 v3)
• Memory Bandwidth: 59.7 GB/s (E5-4620 v3) versus 68.3 GB/s (E5-4650 v3)
• Part Number: SR22K (E5-4620 v3) versus SR22J (E5-4650 v3)
• Launch MSRP: $1668 (E5-4620 v3) versus $2838 (E5-4650 v3)

Everything else matches: architecture, process node, foundry, transistor count, die size, L1 and L2 cache per core, socket, memory type, memory bus, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, and release date.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-4650 v3 wins in every measured category. It has more cores, higher clocks, more L3 cache, higher memory bandwidth, and better scores in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests. For any workload that benefits from additional parallel threads, the 12-core configuration provides a structural advantage. For single-threaded tasks, the higher boost clock of 2.80 GHz gives it a smaller but consistent edge.

The E5-4620 v3 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head data. Its only advantages are a lower launch MSRP and a lower part number in the database. For users constrained by launch pricing, the E5-4620 v3 is the less expensive entry point, but the recorded performance data shows no scenario where it outperforms the E5-4650 v3.

In practical terms, the E5-4650 v3 is the better choice for multi-threaded server workloads, rendering tasks, and any application that can use 24 threads. The E5-4620 v3 remains a viable 10-core option, but the benchmark deltas are all in the 3% range, meaning the E5-4650 v3 is consistently ahead without any exception.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 outperforms the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 in every recorded benchmark, with margins between 2.8% and 3.1%. It offers 12 cores versus 10, a 2.80 GHz boost clock versus 2.60 GHz, 30 MB of L3 versus 25 MB, and 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 59.7 GB/s. These are not marginal differences in specification; they translate directly to measurable wins across all Cinebench versions tested.

The E5-4650 v3 is the processor to pick for users who need the maximum thread count and the highest clock speeds available in this Haswell-EP generation. Its 50th percentile standing among all CPUs, compared to the 49th percentile for the E5-4620 v3, reflects its slight edge in the overall distribution. The E5-4620 v3 is not a bad processor; it sits in a tight pack of rivals like the Intel Xeon E-2174G and AMD Ryzen 9 4900HS, but it is clearly the slower part in this comparison.

For anyone building or upgrading a Socket 2011-3 system and choosing between these two, the recorded data points to the E5-4650 v3 without qualification. The E5-4620 v3 only makes sense if the lower launch MSRP is the deciding factor, but on performance alone, the E5-4650 v3 wins every test. The choice is straightforward: take the 12-core part with higher clocks, more cache, and higher memory bandwidth.