That's 6 cores, so not quite fair, but w1350 also has a much higher boost frequency, bigger caches, more bandwidth to ram, and it's built on smaller lithography and several generations of core designs later. It's hard to find a comparison between rocket lake and haswell, but between all the differences in lowend xeon parts, you're probably seeing a significant increase in throughput if your load isn't bottlenecked on something else, but even then, 20 pci-e 4.0 lanes vs 16 pci-e 3.0 lanes is more than double the i/o capacity.
As someone who had a chance to see the difference by it's own eyes: yes, it's faster, especially when the memory is the bottleneck. But it's not times faster in everyday tasks. Aside from the synthetic tests you are usually see more performance improvement from the overall system being faster (ie SATA to NVMe, more faster RAM) than just by CPU alone.
There are some apps that are CPU bound (GHz first, RAM BW second) which gladly run way faster on these E3-16xx CPUs, than contemporary E5 multisocket monsters with tons of RAM... but waaay less GHz. These apps would be better on W1350, no questions.
That's 6 cores, so not quite fair, but w1350 also has a much higher boost frequency, bigger caches, more bandwidth to ram, and it's built on smaller lithography and several generations of core designs later. It's hard to find a comparison between rocket lake and haswell, but between all the differences in lowend xeon parts, you're probably seeing a significant increase in throughput if your load isn't bottlenecked on something else, but even then, 20 pci-e 4.0 lanes vs 16 pci-e 3.0 lanes is more than double the i/o capacity.