Intel Core i3-1315UE vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent pattern across every Cinebench iteration. The Intel Core i3-1315UE wins all six head-to-head comparisons, yet the margins are surprisingly narrow given the architectural gap between these two processors. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the i3-1315UE scores 606 against the Xeon E5-1620 v3's 595, a 1.8% delta. The exact same 1.8% margin appears in Cinebench R23 singlecore, with scores of 849 and 834 respectively.

The other four benchmarks cluster tightly around a 1.7% advantage for the i3-1315UE. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 2525 versus 2482, while R20 singlecore records 356 against 350. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 6013 versus 5910, and Cinebench R15 singlecore shows 85 versus 84, which is the smallest absolute gap at just one point but still represents a 1.2% delta. The consistency of these margins suggests that the i3-1315UE's advantage is fundamental to its architecture rather than workload-specific, as the gap barely shifts between single-threaded and multi-threaded tests.

When placed against their respective peer groups, both processors sit in similar territory. The i3-1315UE holds a 41st percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average benchmark score of 1739. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-10100, averages 1742, just 0.1% higher, while the AMD Ryzen 3 4300U also averages 1742, and the Intel Core i5-6600 averages 1744. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 sits at the 40th percentile with an average score of 1709, placing it directly alongside the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 at 1709, with the Core i7-990X 0.2% behind at 1713.

The headline here is that a 2023 mobile processor beats a 2014 server workstation chip, but only by a single-digit margin. The data suggests generational efficiency gains did not translate into dramatic performance superiority in this matchup. The i3-1315UE's six wins are real, but the deltas are small enough that the Xeon remains competitive in raw Cinebench throughput despite being nine years older.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental distinction lies in the process node and core configuration. The i3-1315UE uses Intel's 10 nm process with a Raptor Lake architecture, specifically Raptor Lake-U, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 relies on the 22 nm Haswell-EP design. That process difference explains a great deal about power and thermal behavior, though the benchmark scores do not reflect the gap you might expect.

Core counts differ: the i3-1315UE packs 6 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon uses 4 cores and 8 threads. Both support hyperthreading, but the i3 has two additional physical cores. Cache layouts also differ. The i3 allocates 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, whereas the Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is identical at 10 MB shared, which partially explains why the multicore scores remain so close despite the core count difference.

Memory support diverges sharply. The i3-1315UE supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration, while the Xeon is limited to DDR4. The Xeon does offer quad-channel memory and a recorded 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, whereas the i3 has no recorded bandwidth figure. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i3 does not. The PCIe situation is reversed in lane count: the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the i3 provides only 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

The transistor scale is informative. The Xeon packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, while the i3's transistor count and die size are not recorded. The Xeon is a physically large, power-hungry chip with a 140 TDP, whereas the i3 draws only 15 TDP. The integrated graphics also differ: the i3 includes Intel UHD Graphics 64EU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore, and by how much?

A: The Intel Core i3-1315UE wins with a score of 6013, versus the Xeon E5-1620 v3's 5910, a 1.7% advantage.

Q: Is the Xeon E5-1620 v3 still competitive in single-core tests?

A: The data shows the Xeon scores 834 in Cinebench R23 singlecore, while the i3-1315UE scores 849. The Xeon is only 1.8% behind, indicating it remains competitive despite its age.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i3-1315UE does not.

Q: How does the core and thread count compare?

A: The i3-1315UE has 6 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having two fewer cores, the Xeon's multicore scores trail the i3 by less than 2% in every test.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth of the Xeon E5-1620 v3?

A: The Xeon has a recorded memory bandwidth of 68.68 GB/s, while the i3-1315UE has no bandwidth figure recorded.

Q: Which processor has a higher percentile ranking?

A: The i3-1315UE ranks at the 41st percentile among all CPUs, while the Xeon ranks at the 40th percentile.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The i3-1315UE uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The i3 has a 10 nm process node, and the Xeon has a 22 nm process node. The i3 has 6 cores and 8 threads, the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1200.00 MHz for the i3 and 3500.00 MHz for the Xeon, while boost clocks are 4500.00 MHz versus 3600.00 MHz.

The cache hierarchy differs in L1 and L2 sizes: the i3 uses 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core, while the Xeon uses 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core. Both share 10 MB of L3. Memory support is DDR4/DDR5 with dual-channel on the i3, versus DDR4-only with quad-channel on the Xeon. The Xeon has a recorded 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the i3 has none recorded. ECC memory is available on the Xeon only. The PCIe configuration differs: the i3 has 8 PCIe Gen 4 lanes, while the Xeon has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The i3 includes integrated UHD Graphics 64EU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The market segments also differ: the i3 is Mobile, and the Xeon is Server/Workstation. The i3 is active in production, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The release dates show the i3 launched on 2023-01-03, while the Xeon launched on 2014-09-07. The Xeon has a recorded part number of QGZYSR20P, while the i3 does not have a recorded part number.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but nuanced conclusion: the Intel Core i3-1315UE is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded, but the margins are unusually small. The i3-1315UE wins all six Cinebench tests with deltas between 1.2% and 1.8%, and it holds a 41st percentile ranking versus the Xeon's 40th percentile. The i3 also has a higher average benchmark score of 1739 versus 1709.

However, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is not far behind. For a processor that is end-of-life and based on a much older 22 nm process, its performance remains within 2% of a modern mobile chip in every test. The Xeon offers quad-channel memory, ECC support, and 40 PCIe lanes, which matter for workstation workloads that do not appear in these Cinebench scores. The i3 offers a 10 nm process, a much lower 15 TDP versus 140, integrated graphics, and DDR5 support.

The verdict depends on the use case. For pure Cinebench-style multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering, the i3-1315UE is the winner in every recorded test. For environments requiring ECC memory, high PCIe lane counts, or quad-channel bandwidth, the Xeon's strengths lie outside these benchmarks. The data does not show a single decisive knockout blow from either side; it shows the i3 pulling ahead by a consistent, reliable but small margin.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-1315UE wins in every recorded benchmark head-to-head, so its victory list is comprehensive. It wins multicore tests by 1.7% to 1.8%, and singlecore tests by 1.2% to 1.8%. The i3 also wins on efficiency: its 15 TDP versus the Xeon's 140 TDP means that the i3 delivers comparable performance at a fraction of the power draw. The i3 also wins on connectivity generation, offering PCIe Gen 4 lanes, and on memory flexibility with DDR4 and DDR5 support.

The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins in areas that Cinebench does not measure. It supports ECC memory, which is essential for error-correcting data integrity in server and workstation workloads. It offers a quad-channel memory bus with a recorded 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, and it provides 40 PCIe lanes versus 8, which allows for more expansion cards and drives. The Xeon's higher base clock of 3500.00 MHz versus 1200.00 MHz suggests a different design philosophy: the Xeon is built for sustained throughput, while the i3 relies on boost clocks up to 4500.00 MHz to achieve its scores.

The benchmark database also shows that neither processor is far from its closest rivals. The i3-1315UE sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i5-6600 and the Intel Core i7-980X, while the Xeon sits within 0.4% of the Intel Core i7-990X and AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U. The recorded data implies that for workloads that fit within the Cinebench test pattern, these two CPUs are nearly interchangeable in performance. The i3 just barely edges out the Xeon on every run, but the Xeon remains a viable server-focused alternative for users who need ECC and expandability over raw rendering speed.