Intel Core i3-1115G4E vs Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-1115G4E and Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 occupy similar average benchmark territory, with the Xeon posting an average score of 1557 against the Core i3's 1559. Despite this near-identical overall standing, the head-to-head benchmark data tells a completely different story, showing a decisive sweep for the older Xeon part across every single test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the Core i3-1115G4E failing to secure a single victory. The margin of defeat is remarkably consistent, hovering around 16.5% in every workload. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 542 against the Core i3's 452, a delta of -16.6% for the i3. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap, with the Xeon at 76 and the i3 at 63, a -17.1% difference.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Xeon posts 2260 in multi-core versus 1887 for the i3 (-16.5%), and 319 versus 266 in single-core (-16.6%). The most modern test in the set, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend: the Xeon leads 5383 to 4493 in multi-core (-16.5%) and 760 to 634 in single-core (-16.6%). Each benchmark result points to the same conclusion — the Xeon E3-1268L v5 is consistently about one-sixth faster than the Core i3-1115G4E, regardless of whether the workload stresses one core or all of them.

This consistency is notable because the two chips are built on fundamentally different architectures and process nodes. The Xeon's advantage is not a narrow one that appears only in specific scenarios; it is a broad, across-the-board performance lead. The Core i3's higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.40 GHz does not translate into a single-core win, which suggests the Xeon's architectural efficiency and larger cache compensate for its lower peak frequency. In every measured metric, the older, larger, and more power-hungry Xeon simply outperforms the newer, more efficient mobile chip.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 is the clear performance winner. It beats the Core i3-1115G4E by roughly 16.5% in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core. Anyone prioritizing raw compute throughput should choose the Xeon, provided the platform can accommodate its higher power draw and different socket. The Core i3-1115G4E, despite being newer and built on a more advanced 10 nm process, does not offer a single benchmark where it comes out ahead.

However, the data also shows that both processors sit at the 39th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are within 0.1% of each other (1559 for the i3, 1557 for the Xeon). This means that in the broader landscape of available processors, they are peers. The Xeon's consistent head-to-head win is real, but it does not lift the chip into a higher performance class. For a user who needs the absolute best Cinebench scores between these two specific options, the Xeon is the only choice. For a user who needs a lower-power, mobile processor with a modern feature set, the Core i3 remains viable despite its benchmark deficit.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different eras and design philosophies from Intel. The Core i3-1115G4E is based on the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically the Tiger Lake-U codename, and is manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process node. It belongs to the Core i3 generation built on the Willow Cove-U microarchitecture. In contrast, the Xeon E3-1268L v5 uses the older Skylake architecture, with the Skylake-DT codename, and is fabricated on a 14 nm process. The Xeon's die size is 122 mm² and contains 1,750 million transistors, while the Core i3's die is larger at 144 mm² but does not have a listed transistor count.

Cache configurations differ substantially between the two. The Core i3 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with a total of 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has smaller per-core caches — 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 — but compensates with a larger 8 MB shared L3 cache. This larger L3 pool gives the Xeon more shared capacity for frequently accessed data, which likely contributes to its consistent benchmark lead.

The integrated graphics also diverge. The Core i3 uses UHD Graphics G4 with 48 execution units, while the Xeon is equipped with HD Graphics P530. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core i3, which is a critical distinction for server and workstation reliability use cases. The PCIe capabilities are another major architectural split: the Core i3 offers PCIe Gen 4 with 4 CPU-only lanes, whereas the Xeon provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification difference is core count. The Xeon E3-1268L v5 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-1115G4E has only 2 cores and 4 threads. This doubling of compute resources is a primary reason for the Xeon's multi-core advantage, though it does not explain the single-core lead.

Clock speeds favor the Core i3 in peak boost but the Xeon in base frequency. The Core i3 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the Xeon runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. The Xeon's higher base clock helps sustained workloads, but the Core i3's higher boost should theoretically win short single-threaded bursts — yet the data shows it does not.

Thermal and power specifications are starkly different. The Core i3 has a TDP of 15 watts, classifying it as a low-power mobile part, while the Xeon has a TDP of 35 watts. This 20-watt difference is substantial and directly impacts cooling requirements and system design. The Xeon also has a higher launch MSRP of $377, compared to the Core i3's $285 launch MSRP.

Socket compatibility is another divergent point. The Core i3 uses Intel BGA 1449, a soldered mobile socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, a desktop/server-oriented socket. The memory support differs as well: the Core i3 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The Xeon lists a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Core i3 does not specify a bandwidth figure. The Core i3 was released on 2020-09-01 and is marked as Active, while the Xeon was released on 2015-10-18 and is End-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 scores 760, while the Intel Core i3-1115G4E scores 634, giving the Xeon a 16.6% advantage in that test.

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

A: The Core i3-1115G4E has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E3-1268L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

A: No, the Core i3 does not support ECC memory. The Xeon E3-1268L v5 does support ECC memory, which is a key feature for server reliability.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Core i3-1115G4E has a TDP of 15 watts, while the Xeon E3-1268L v5 has a TDP of 35 watts.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i3-1115G4E has a higher boost clock at 3.90 GHz, compared to the Xeon's 3.40 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon still wins all single-core benchmarks.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Core i3-1115G4E and the Xeon E3-1268L v5 are at the 39th percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical (1559 vs 1557).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 wins in every benchmark category measured. It is faster in all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. The Xeon's margin is consistent at approximately 16.5% across the board. This makes it the superior choice for any workload where Cinebench scores are a meaningful proxy, such as 3D rendering, video encoding, or any CPU-intensive computation. Its support for ECC memory and its server/workstation market segment further position it for reliability-focused environments. The Xeon's 8 MB of shared L3 cache, larger than the Core i3's 6 MB, likely aids in data-heavy tasks.

The Intel Core i3-1115G4E does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but it has other advantages visible in the specification data. Its 15-watt TDP makes it far more suitable for thin-and-light mobile devices, where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical constraints. The Core i3 supports PCIe Gen 4, offering newer I/O technology, and has a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz. Its production status is Active, while the Xeon is End-of-life, meaning the Core i3 is still a current product. For a user building a low-power, portable system who does not need the Xeon's raw multi-core throughput or ECC support, the Core i3 remains a functional choice despite its benchmark deficit.