Is CPU-Z showing my CPU incorrectly, is my CPU fake, or am I just misunderstanding the listed specs?

[Cyber Akuma]

I have a Xeon E5-2667 V4. In the interest of full disclosure I did buy this used on eBay on March of this year. I know that there are scams out there that try to alter the appearance of a cheap CPU to make it look more a more desirable expensive one, maybe even alter it's firmware somehow to also show up as one (no idea if that's possible for CPUs, I know you can with GPUs), but I also highly doubt that there is much of a market of fake/re-named Xeon CPUs from 2016 that barely go for $30 on eBay, especially in 2023 (also checking prices on eBay, the 1660 v4 seems to go for around $10-20 MORE than the 2667 v4 for some reason...). 
 
I noticed that when I opened up CPU-Z, it claimed the name of my CPU was a "Xeon E5-1660 v4", but then lower under "specification" it lists it as a "Xeon E5-2667 v4"... along with some garbled characters. 
 
https://i.imgur.com/5d1P2zV.png
 
While I don't remember paying attention to this when I first tested my CPU with it back in March, I am pretty sure I would have noticed a discrepancy like that, also while I don't have a screenshot of that screen I do have a screenshot of CPU-Z's benchmark screen from when I first got that CPU, and I noticed that the CPU's specification does NOT have the garbled characters in it back when I was using version 1.79.1 at that time: https://i.imgur.com/Ih18MD3.png
 
To clarify, the benchmark screen on the latest version at the time of this writing (2.06.1) also has the garbled characters, it's not just on the main screen. 
 
I was also going to comment how when I first got the CPU and ran several benchmarks, such as CinemarkR23: https://i.imgur.com/2WDpk3e.png
 
But then when I looked up the differences between the 1660 v4 and 2667 v4 expecting to be considerably different, I saw that their specs are almost exactly the same. I only noticed three differences: That the 2667 v4 has 25MB of L3 cache compared to the other's 20MB, that the 1660 v4 runs slightly hotter at 140TDP instead of 135, and that the 2667 v4's single core turbo goes up to 3.6GHZ while the 1660 v4's goes up to 3.8GHz. So now I am not sure if benchmarks between the two would be close enough that I can't even trust the margin of error in them to make sure if it's a 2667 or 1660. 
 
Could this really be a 1660 v4 and I was scammed (would it even be a scam considering the price difference? Though I would be trading about 20% less L3 cache and slightly higher temperatures for a mere .20 single core boost, not a great deal IMO even if it does for some reason cost more)? Or is it actually a 2667 v4 and CPU-Z isn't identifying it correctly in the newer versions? Or is all of this information correct and I am somehow not understanding that it's somehow both a 1660 v4 and 2667 v4, like the 2667 v4 being a sub-set of the 1660 v4 or something?

[NeverNotExhausted]

Given that CPU-Z is showing 25mb of L3 cache, I'd say you've got the E5-2667 V4. Main difference being that you have a slightly lower turbo frequency and more cache. The 2667 also has support for 2S servers as well, while the 1660 is limited to 1S. Which isn't really applicable to your use case by the looks of it.

 

I'd be more inclined to think it's an error on CPU-Z's part? Either way I wouldn't really be worrying about it

[AI_Must_Di3]

Use this: https://www.hwinfo.com/download/

That app will give you a ton more info about the chip. CPUZ is still a great app and has its place but this is when you need to go deeper.

[Cyber Akuma]

Yeah, I tried both HWiNFO and Aida64, both reported it as a 2667 v4

[Beerzerker]

Here's where you can see more about the chip you have: https://hwbot.org/hardware/processors#key=xeon_e5_2667_v4

One of my team members (Aleslammer) is shown with it here.

Apparently the CPU-Z database doesn't have it registered properly but what you are seeing appears consistent to what others are showing. 

[Cyber Akuma]

Thanks, the legacy identification utility also confirmed it as a 2667 v4