Intel Core i3-1115G4E vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

Intel Core i3-1115G4E vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5

The database places both processors at the 39th percentile among all CPUs, with the Intel Core i3-1115G4E averaging 1559 points and the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 averaging 1609 points. This places the Xeon roughly 3% higher on average, a margin that reflects its consistent lead across every recorded benchmark. The two parts target different segments, mobile thin-and-light versus server/workstation, yet their overall performance scores land close enough that the comparison hinges on workload specifics rather than a sweeping verdict.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins all six recorded comparisons, and it does so with a remarkably uniform margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 560 against the i3-1115G4E’s 452, a 19.3% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 78 for the Xeon versus 63 for the i3, a 19.2% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 2336 multi-core and 329 single-core, while the i3 manages 1887 and 266, respectively. Both deltas sit at 19.2% and 19.1%. Cinebench R23 shows the same story: the Xeon reaches 5564 multi-core and 785 single-core, the i3 trails at 4493 and 634, with the margin again at 19.2%. Geekbench multi-core and single-core are not recorded for the Xeon, so the head-to-head table relies solely on the Cinebench suite, but those six results establish a clear trend.

The consistency of the gap is notable. Every Cinebench test, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, shows the Xeon leading by roughly 19%. This suggests the difference is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental throughput advantage. The i3-1115G4E’s boost clock of 3.90 GHz is higher than the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz, yet the Xeon still wins single-core tests. That points to architectural efficiency and the Xeon’s additional cores and threads mattering even in nominally single-threaded tasks, likely due to background scheduling and turbo behavior. The data does not show a single benchmark where the i3 takes the lead, so any argument for the i3 must rest on non-performance factors like power draw or platform fit.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The i3-1115G4E uses Intel’s Tiger Lake architecture on a 10 nm process, built with the Willow Cove core design. It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses Skylake on a 14 nm process, with 4 cores and 8 threads, base clock 2.10 GHz and boost 3.20 GHz. The i3’s process node is smaller, but the Xeon compensates with double the cores and threads.

Cache layouts differ significantly. The i3 has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The i3’s per-core L2 is much larger, but the Xeon’s total L3 is 33% bigger. Die size also varies: the i3 measures 144 mm², while the Xeon is 122 mm² with a transistor count of 1,750 million. The Xeon’s smaller die despite more cores reflects the older but denser 14 nm process.

Memory support splits the pair. The i3 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X, dual-channel, with no ECC capability. The Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4, dual-channel, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s and ECC memory support. The Xeon’s ECC support is a defining feature for server use, while the i3’s lack of ECC limits it to consumer or embedded roles. PCIe lanes also differ: the i3 provides Gen 4 with 4 lanes, the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Xeon offers more lane count but older generation, which matters for expansion. Integrated graphics exist only on the i3, with UHD Graphics G4 48EU; the Xeon has none, requiring a discrete GPU.

Sockets and market positioning reinforce the split. The i3 uses Intel BGA 1449 and is marked for mobile, while the Xeon uses Socket 1151 and is marked for server/workstation. The i3’s production status is active, the Xeon is end-of-life. Release dates confirm the generational gap: the i3 launched in September 2020, the Xeon in October 2015, five years apart.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 scores 785, while the Intel Core i3-1115G4E scores 634. The Xeon leads by 19.2%.

Q: Does the Core i3-1115G4E support ECC memory?

A: No, the i3-1115G4E’s memory support is listed as DDR4 and LPDDR4X with no ECC capability. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 supports ECC memory.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The i3-1115G4E has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The i3-1115G4E averages 1559 points, while the Xeon E3-1240L v5 averages 1609 points. The Xeon is about 3% higher.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i3-1115G4E boosts to 3.90 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon wins all recorded single-core benchmarks.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both sit at the 39th percentile among all CPUs, according to the database.

The Verdict

The recorded data gives no ambiguity: the Xeon E3-1240L v5 outperforms the Core i3-1115G4E in every benchmark test. The margin is consistent, around 19% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, for both single-core and multi-core. The Xeon’s four cores and eight threads provide a structural advantage that the i3’s higher boost clock cannot overcome. The i3’s only recorded wins are absent; the wins count stands at 0 for the i3 and 6 for the Xeon.

For workloads that rely on CPU throughput, such as rendering, compiling, or server-side processing, the Xeon is the clear choice from the data. Its ECC memory support and 16 PCIe lanes also make it suitable for workstation or server environments where reliability and expansion matter. The i3-1115G4E, however, offers integrated graphics, a smaller 15 W TDP, and a newer 10 nm process, which make it viable for compact mobile or embedded systems where power and space are constrained. Its active production status and newer release date mean it remains available for new designs, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

The percentile ranking is identical, but that masks the head-to-head results. The i3’s average score is pulled up by Geekbench numbers, which are not present for the Xeon in the head-to-head table. When directly compared on the same tests, the Xeon is consistently ahead. A buyer choosing between these two should weigh the Xeon’s superior performance and ECC support against the i3’s lower power draw and integrated graphics. The data does not support any scenario where the i3 wins on raw speed.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every major specification. The i3-1115G4E has 2 cores and 4 threads; the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are close, 2.20 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, but boost clocks differ more, 3.90 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP is a significant gap: the i3 draws 15 W, the Xeon draws 25 W. Sockets are incompatible: the i3 uses Intel BGA 1449, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151. Architecture and process node differ, with Tiger Lake on 10 nm for the i3 and Skylake on 14 nm for the Xeon. The Xeon has a transistor count of 1,750 million and a die size of 122 mm², while the i3’s die is 144 mm² with no transistor count recorded.

Cache structures diverge: the i3 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3; the Xeon has 64 KB L1, 256 KB L2, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support differs, with the i3 handling DDR4 and LPDDR4X, and the Xeon handling DDR3 and DDR4. The Xeon has a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, the i3 has none listed. ECC memory is available only on the Xeon. PCIe generations and lanes differ: the i3 has Gen 4 with 4 lanes, the Xeon has Gen 3 with 16 lanes. Integrated graphics exist only on the i3, with UHD Graphics G4 48EU; the Xeon has none. Market segment, production status, release date, part number, and launch MSRP all differ as well.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins every recorded benchmark, so the performance case is one-sided. It is the choice for multi-threaded workloads, as shown by its 5564 score in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus the i3’s 4493. It also wins single-threaded tests despite a lower boost clock, indicating a more efficient core design per clock. The Xeon’s ECC memory support and 16 PCIe lanes make it suitable for server or workstation builds where data integrity and expansion are priorities. Its 8 MB L3 cache, larger than the i3’s 6 MB, may benefit workloads with repeated data access. For tasks like virtual machines, database queries, or software compilation, the Xeon’s higher core count and thread count give it a clear edge.

The i3-1115G4E wins on power efficiency, with a 15 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 25 W, making it better for battery-powered or thermally constrained systems. Its integrated graphics remove the need for a discrete GPU, which is essential for compact mobile designs. The newer 10 nm process and Tiger Lake architecture bring features like Gen 4 PCIe, albeit with only 4 lanes, which suits light storage or networking. The i3’s active production status means it can still be sourced for new products, while the Xeon is end-of-life. For embedded or portable applications where performance targets are modest and power draw is critical, the i3 is the logical pick. But for any metric that the database records, the Xeon is faster.