Intel Core i3-8300 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 and the Intel Core i3-8300 are both 14 nm, four-core processors for the Intel Socket 1151 platform, yet they serve different market segments and deliver distinct performance profiles. The recorded data shows the Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 2.6% to 2.9%, despite its significantly lower TDP and older release date. The Core i3-8300, meanwhile, relies on a higher base clock and a newer architecture generation, but benchmark results indicate it trails in every measured workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core performance in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 scores 5564 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 2.9% ahead of the Intel Core i3-8300’s 5408. The Xeon also wins the R15 and R20 multi-core tests with scores of 560 and 2336, respectively, versus 545 and 2271 for the i3-8300.

Q: Are there any single-core tests where the Core i3-8300 wins?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins every single-core benchmark in the database. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 78 versus 76 for the i3-8300, a 2.6% lead. The R20 and R23 single-core results show the same pattern: 329 vs 320 and 785 vs 763, respectively.

Q: What are the TDP differences between the two CPUs?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has a TDP of 25 watts, while the Core i3-8300 has a TDP of 62 watts. This makes the Xeon far more power-efficient on paper, a key differentiator given their otherwise similar core counts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon E3-1240L v5 and the Core i3-8300 support ECC memory. They also both use dual-channel memory, with the Xeon supporting DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3-8300 supports only DDR4.

Q: Which CPU has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Core i3-8300 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, which is substantially higher than the Xeon E3-1240L v5’s 2.10 GHz. The Xeon does have a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, but the i3-8300 has no listed boost clock.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has an average benchmark score of 1609, while the Core i3-8300 averages 1564. The Xeon’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-10610U at 1611 (a -0.1% difference), while the i3-8300’s closest rival is the Intel Core i5-6600T at 1563 (a 0% difference).

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different Intel architecture generations. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 is based on Skylake, specifically the Skylake-DT codename, and belongs to the Xeon E3 (Skylake-DT) generation. The Core i3-8300 uses the Coffee Lake architecture and codename, part of the Core i3 (Coffee Lake) generation. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process node, but the Xeon has a die size of 122 mm², while the i3-8300 has a slightly larger die at 126 mm². The Xeon’s transistor count is listed as 1,750 million, whereas the i3-8300’s transistor count is not recorded in the database.

Core and thread counts are a major differentiator. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads, enabling simultaneous multithreading. The Core i3-8300 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no hyper-threading. This means the Xeon can process more threads concurrently, which is reflected in its multi-core benchmark wins.

Cache hierarchies are identical in structure: both have 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, and 8 MB shared L3 cache. The memory support differs, with the Xeon supporting both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3-8300 only supports DDR4. Memory bandwidth is also higher on the i3-8300, listed at 38.4 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s for the Xeon. Both use dual-channel memory and have PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics are absent on the Xeon E3-1240L v5, while the Core i3-8300 includes UHD Graphics 630. This is a significant feature gap for users who require a display output without a discrete GPU. The Xeon is aimed at the server/workstation segment, while the i3-8300 targets desktops. Both are end-of-life products, with the Xeon released on 2015-10-18 and the i3-8300 on 2018-02-13.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the faster processor in every Cinebench test recorded. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with deltas between 2.6% and 2.9%. This is notable because the Xeon has a much lower base clock (2.10 GHz vs 3.70 GHz) and a significantly lower TDP (25 W vs 62 W). The extra threads (8 vs 4) and the boost clock of 3.20 GHz appear to compensate for the lower base frequency.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded performance, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the clear choice. Its wins in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests are consistent, with deltas of 2.8%, 2.9%, and 2.9% respectively. Single-core performance also favors the Xeon, with deltas of 2.6% to 2.9% across all three Cinebench versions. The Xeon also has a higher average benchmark score (1609 vs 1564) and a higher percentile ranking, though both sit at the 39th percentile among all CPUs.

However, the Core i3-8300 is not without merits. It offers integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. Its higher base clock (3.70 GHz) suggests better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks that do not scale with boost clocks, though the recorded single-core benchmarks still favor the Xeon. The i3-8300 also has higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s) and a newer release date (2018 vs 2015). For users who need a simple desktop build without a discrete GPU, the i3-8300’s integrated graphics are a decisive factor. For those who prioritize processing power and efficiency, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is superior in every measured benchmark.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 8 threads, while the Core i3-8300 has 4 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.10 GHz, with a boost clock of 3.20 GHz; the i3-8300 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and no boost clock listed. TDP values are starkly different: 25 W for the Xeon versus 62 W for the i3-8300.

Memory support differs, with the Xeon supporting both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3-8300 supports only DDR4. Memory bandwidth is higher on the i3-8300 (38.4 GB/s) than on the Xeon (34.1 GB/s). The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the i3-8300 includes UHD Graphics 630. The die size is 122 mm² for the Xeon and 126 mm² for the i3-8300. Transistor count is 1,750 million for the Xeon, with no data for the i3-8300.

The architectures differ: Skylake-DT for the Xeon versus Coffee Lake for the i3-8300. Release dates are 2015-10-18 for the Xeon and 2018-02-13 for the i3-8300. The market segments are server/workstation for the Xeon and desktop for the i3-8300. Part numbers are SR2LN for the Xeon and SR3XY for the i3-8300. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $278, and for the i3-8300 it is $138. Both processors have 4 cores, 64 KB L1 cache per core, 256 KB L2 cache per core, 8 MB shared L3 cache, dual-channel memory, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, ECC memory support, and are not multiplier unlocked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are consistent across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 scores 560, beating the i3-8300’s 545 by 2.8%. In R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 78 against 76, a 2.6% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows the Xeon at 2336 versus 2271, a 2.9% lead. R20 single-core has the Xeon at 329 versus 320, again 2.8%. The R23 multi-core test puts the Xeon at 5564 and the i3-8300 at 5408, a 2.9% gap. Finally, R23 single-core shows the Xeon at 785 and the i3-8300 at 763, 2.9% apart.

These margins are small but uniform. The Xeon’s largest win is 2.9% in R20 multi-core and R23 multi-core and R23 single-core. Its smallest win is 2.6% in R15 single-core. The i3-8300 has no wins in any recorded test. The average benchmark score difference is 45 points (1609 vs 1564), which aligns with the head-to-head deltas. The Xeon’s percentile is 39, matching the i3-8300’s percentile of 39, indicating they sit at the same level in the overall CPU distribution despite the Xeon’s consistent wins.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins in all performance categories measured. This includes multi-core workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, and compilation, as evidenced by its Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores. It also wins in single-core tasks such as everyday application responsiveness, with higher R15, R20, and R23 single-core scores. The Xeon’s 8 threads make it better suited for heavily threaded software, and its lower TDP (25 W) suggests it is more energy-efficient for sustained workloads. Its support for DDR3 and DDR4 memory provides flexibility in system builds.

The Core i3-8300 wins in specific feature-based scenarios. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, enabling systems to operate without a discrete GPU, which is impossible on the Xeon. Its higher base clock (3.70 GHz) may offer snappier performance in short, single-threaded bursts, though the recorded single-core benchmarks do not confirm this advantage. Its higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s) could benefit memory-intensive applications, but this is not reflected in the Cinebench scores. The i3-8300’s newer Coffee Lake architecture and later release date mean it supports newer platform features, though the database does not specify which ones.

In practical terms, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the choice for server or workstation tasks where multi-threading and efficiency matter most. The Core i3-8300 is the choice for a desktop build requiring integrated graphics, especially if the user prioritizes a simpler configuration over peak benchmark performance. The data shows the Xeon is ahead in every measured benchmark, but the i3-8300’s integrated graphics and higher base clock make it a viable alternative for specific use cases.