Xeon E5-1603 vs E5-2676 V3

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2676 V3
2015
12 cores / 24 threads, 120 Watt
8.80
+291%

Xeon E5-2676 V3 outperforms Xeon E5-1603 by a whopping 291% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking8831835
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency6.711.58
Architecture codenameHaswell-EP (2014−2015)no data
Release dateJune 2015 (9 years ago)1 January 2012 (12 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores12 (Dodeca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads244
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed3 GHzno data
Bus rateno data0 GT/s
L1 cache64K (per core)no data
L2 cache256K (per core)no data
L3 cache30 MB (shared)10 MB
Chip lithography22 nm32 nm
Die size356 mm2no data
Maximum core temperatureno data64 °C
Number of transistors2,600 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibilityno data-
VID voltage rangeno data0.6V - 1.35V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration21
Socket2011-3FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)120 Watt130 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® AVX
AES-NI++
AVX+-
vPro++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
TSX+-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data+
Demand Based Switchingno data+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3, DDR4 2133 MHz Quad-channelDDR3-800, DDR3-1066
Maximum memory sizeno data375 GB
Max memory channelsno data4
Maximum memory bandwidthno data31.4 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603.

PCIe version3.03.0
PCI Express lanes4040

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon E5-2676 V3 8.80
+291%
Xeon E5-1603 2.25

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Xeon E5-2676 V3 13524
+291%
Xeon E5-1603 3463

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

Xeon E5-2676 V3 629
+35%
Xeon E5-1603 466

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

Xeon E5-2676 V3 2308
+56.2%
Xeon E5-1603 1478

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.80 2.25
Physical cores 12 4
Threads 24 4
Chip lithography 22 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 120 Watt 130 Watt

Xeon E5-2676 V3 has a 291.1% higher aggregate performance score, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, a 45.5% more advanced lithography process, and 8.3% lower power consumption.

The Xeon E5-2676 V3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-1603 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2676 V3 and Xeon E5-1603, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon E5-2676 V3
Xeon E5-2676 V3
Intel Xeon E5-1603
Xeon E5-1603

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


4.2 131 vote

Rate Xeon E5-2676 V3 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 22 votes

Rate Xeon E5-1603 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2676 V3 or Xeon E5-1603, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.