Intel Core i3-7300T vs Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 and Intel Core i3-7300T are both Intel Socket 1151 processors, yet they target fundamentally different segments. The Xeon is a server/workstation part from the Skylake generation, while the i3 is a desktop chip from the Kaby Lake generation. Despite the i3’s higher base clock and newer architecture, the benchmark data consistently favors the Xeon across every single test. The Xeon wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with a decisive 21.1% to 21.2% margin in each. The i3-7300T, however, holds its own in terms of overall positioning, with both CPUs sitting at the 34th percentile among all CPUs. The Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1232, barely edging out the i3’s 1211, which places them in nearly identical performance tiers despite their architectural differences.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture: the Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 outperforms the Intel Core i3-7300T in every measured benchmark. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 429 against the i3’s 354, a 21.2% advantage. This pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (1789 vs 1477, a 21.1% gap) and R23 multi-core (4261 vs 3519, also 21.1%). Notably, the Xeon also wins in single-core tests, which is unexpected given the i3’s much higher 3.50 GHz base clock compared to the Xeon’s 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. In R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 252 versus 208, a 21.2% lead, and in R23 single-core it scores 601 versus 496, another 21.2% margin. This suggests that the Xeon’s architecture or cache configuration provides a significant efficiency advantage per clock.

Who should pick which? Based strictly on performance, the Xeon E3-1235L v5 is the superior choice for any workload, whether multi-threaded or single-threaded. Its 4 cores and 8 MB of shared L3 cache provide a structural advantage over the i3’s 2 cores and 4 MB of L3. However, the Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the i3-7300T remains active, which may matter for long-term availability. The i3-7300T does have a higher memory bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s versus the Xeon’s 34.1 GB/s, but this does not translate into benchmark wins. For users needing ECC memory support, the Xeon is the only option, as the i3 lacks this feature. The Xeon also targets the server/workstation segment, while the i3 is a desktop part, so the choice may come down to platform requirements rather than raw performance.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 scores 4261 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core i3-7300T scores 3519. This gives the Xeon a 21.1% lead in that test.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-7300T have a higher single-core score than the Xeon?

A: No. Despite the i3’s 3.50 GHz base clock versus the Xeon’s 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost, the Xeon wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 252 versus 208, and in R23 single-core it scores 601 versus 496, both with a 21.2% advantage.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-7300T does not have ECC support, which is a key differentiator for server or workstation reliability requirements.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in terms of physical core count?

A: The Xeon has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while the i3 has 2 physical cores and 4 threads. The Xeon’s extra two physical cores likely contribute to its consistent multi-core wins.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU, and how do they rank?

A: The Xeon E3-1235L v5 has an average benchmark score of 1232, while the i3-7300T has an average score of 1211. Both sit at the 34th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy the same overall performance tier.

Q: Are both CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node. The Xeon is based on the Skylake architecture, while the i3-7300T uses Kaby Lake, but the lithography is identical.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs stem from different Intel microarchitectures. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 is built on the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-DT codename, while the i3-7300T uses the Kaby Lake architecture. Both are manufactured on the same 14 nm process node by Intel, but Kaby Lake is a refined iteration of Skylake, typically offering minor clock speed improvements rather than major IPC changes. The Xeon’s transistor count is listed at 1,750 million, with a die size of 122 mm², while the i3’s transistor count and die size are not provided in the data.

The Xeon features 4 cores and 4 threads, whereas the i3 has 2 cores and 4 threads, meaning the Xeon has twice the physical core count. The cache hierarchy also differs significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache is a major differentiator: the Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3, while the i3 has only 4 MB of shared L3. This doubled L3 cache likely explains why the Xeon wins even in single-core tests, as it can hold more working data closer to the execution cores.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Xeon uses HD Graphics P530, while the i3-7300T uses Intel HD 630. Neither is a high-end GPU, but the HD 630 is a more recent iteration. The Xeon’s market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, whereas the i3 is a Desktop part. This positions the Xeon for reliability and ECC support, which it provides, while the i3 lacks ECC. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the i3 is marked as active, which is relevant for system builders concerned about longevity.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal several key differences beyond the core and cache counts. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, while the i3-7300T has a base clock of 3500.00 MHz and no boost clock listed. The i3’s higher base clock suggests it should be faster in lightly threaded tasks, but the benchmark data contradicts this, indicating the Xeon’s architectural advantages outweigh the clock speed deficit.

Thermal design power (TDP) is another differentiator. The Xeon has a TDP of 25 watts, while the i3-7300T has a TDP of 35 watts. This makes the Xeon more power-efficient on paper, despite its higher performance in benchmarks. Both use the same Intel Socket 1151 and support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Memory support differs: the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3 supports only DDR4. Both are dual-channel, but the i3 has a higher memory bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s versus the Xeon’s 34.1 GB/s.

The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i3 does not, which is a critical feature for error-correcting workloads. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $250, while no launch MSRP is provided for the i3. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either. The Xeon’s part number is SR2LM, and the i3’s is SR35M. The release dates also differ, with the Xeon launching on 2015-10-18 and the i3 on 2017-01-02, placing the Xeon over a year earlier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is remarkably consistent. Across all five Cinebench tests, the Xeon E3-1235L v5 wins by nearly identical margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 429 against the i3’s 354, a 21.2% delta. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 1789 versus 1477, a 21.1% delta. In R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 4261 and the i3 scores 3519, again a 21.1% delta. These multi-core results are expected given the Xeon’s 4-core advantage over the i3’s 2-core design.

The single-core results are more surprising. In R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 252 versus the i3’s 208, a 21.2% delta. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 601 versus 496, also a 21.2% delta. Given that the i3 has a 3.50 GHz base clock and the Xeon has a 3.00 GHz boost clock, one would expect the i3 to win or at least be competitive in single-threaded tests. The data shows the opposite, with the Xeon maintaining its exact margin in both multi-core and single-core tests. This suggests that the Xeon’s IPC (instructions per clock) is significantly higher, or that its 8 MB L3 cache provides a substantial hit-rate advantage.

The i3-7300T has no wins in any head-to-head benchmark, with the Xeon taking all 5. The deltas are uniformly around 21%, which is a robust and consistent performance gap. The i3’s only potential advantage is its higher memory bandwidth, but this does not manifest in any of the Cinebench tests, which are compute-bound rather than memory-bandwidth-bound. The Xeon’s nearest rivals in the overall database include the Intel Core i3-8109U and Intel Pentium Gold G6600, both with an average score of 1235, while the i3-7300T’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E5645 with a score of 1211. This places the two CPUs in overlapping performance territory overall, yet the direct comparison shows a clear winner.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1235L v5 wins in every benchmark category measured. For multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, 3D modeling, or server-side processing, the Xeon’s 4 cores and 8 MB L3 cache deliver a 21.1% advantage in Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core tests. This makes it the clear choice for any application that can utilize multiple cores. The Xeon also wins in single-threaded performance, which is unexpected but consistent across R20 and R23, with a 21.2% lead. This means even for lightly threaded tasks like web browsing or office productivity, the Xeon is faster according to the data.

The i3-7300T does not win any benchmark, but it has other merits. Its higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s versus the Xeon’s 34.1 GB/s could benefit memory-intensive applications, though this is not reflected in the Cinebench scores. The i3 is also an active production part, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life, which may be a deciding factor for procurement. The i3’s 35-watt TDP is higher than the Xeon’s 25-watt TDP, so the Xeon is more power-efficient. For users who do not need ECC memory, the i3 could be sufficient, but the data shows it will be slower in every Cinebench test. The Xeon’s server/workstation pedigree gives it ECC support and a $250 launch MSRP, while the i3 lacks ECC. In a direct performance comparison, the Xeon is the winner across the board, leaving the i3 as a lower-performance alternative with a newer production status and slightly higher memory bandwidth.