Intel Core i5-1145GRE vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 and the Intel Core i5-1145GRE are separated by five years of silicon evolution, yet benchmark data shows they land in the same performance tier. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, but every victory is marginal, with deltas ranging from 0% to 0.5%. The average benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity: the Xeon averages 2030, while the Core i5 averages 2025, a difference of just 0.2%. Both processors hold the 45th percentile among all CPUs, indicating that despite their architectural age gap, neither offers a meaningful aggregate performance advantage over the other.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E3-1240 v5’s largest win comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 416 against the Core i5-1145GRE’s 414, a 0.5% advantage. This is the only test where the margin exceeds 0.3%. In Cinebench R15 single-core, both chips produce identical scores of 99, resulting in a 0% delta. The single-core results are particularly telling because the Core i5-1145GRE has a higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 3.90 GHz, yet the older Skylake architecture still edges ahead. This suggests that per-clock efficiency differences largely cancel out the Core i5’s frequency advantage.

In multi-core workloads, the pattern is consistent but narrow. The Xeon leads Cinebench R15 multi-core 707 to 705 (0.3%), Cinebench R20 multi-core 2948 to 2940 (0.3%), and Cinebench R23 multi-core 7020 to 7001 (0.3%). The R23 result is the largest absolute gap at 19 points, but this still represents less than a third of a percent. Both chips feature 4 cores and 8 threads, so the multi-core comparison is a pure test of architectural efficiency and sustained power delivery. The Xeon’s 80W TDP allows it to maintain higher sustained clocks, while the Core i5-1145GRE’s 28W TDP likely forces more aggressive power management. The data shows the Xeon wins every round, but the margins are so thin that real-world application differences would be imperceptible.

Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the Xeon E3-1240 v5 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Core i5-1130G7, which averages 2026. The Core i5-1145GRE is 0.1% behind that same i5-1130G7. This places both chips in a tightly packed cluster where the entire spread between the top and bottom of their rival groups is less than 0.4%. The Xeon’s closest rival is the Intel Core i7-5775R at 2031 (0.1% higher), while the Core i5-1145GRE’s closest rival is the i5-1130G7 at 2026 (0.1% higher). These figures confirm that neither chip can claim a decisive benchmark victory over the other or over their immediate competitors.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental architectural split is process node and core design. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 uses Intel’s 14 nm Skylake-DT process, featuring 1,750 million transistors on a 122 mm² die. The Core i5-1145GRE moves to the 10 nm Tiger Lake-U process with a larger 144 mm² die, though transistor count is not listed for this part. This node shrink explains how the Core i5 achieves a much higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz while maintaining a 28W TDP, compared to the Xeon’s 3.90 GHz boost at 80W. The Tiger Lake chip also has a dramatically lower base clock of 1500.00 MHz versus the Xeon’s 3.50 GHz.

Cache hierarchies differ significantly. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, while the Core i5-1145GRE offers 80 KB of L1 and a much larger 1.25 MB of L2 per core. Both share 8 MB of L3 cache. The Core i5’s larger L2 cache is a hallmark of the newer Willow Cove architecture, designed to reduce memory latency. Memory support also diverges: the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4 with a listed bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Core i5 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X with no bandwidth figure provided. Both use dual-channel memory buses.

The most visible feature gap is integrated graphics. The Core i5-1145GRE includes Iris Xe Graphics G7 with 80 execution units, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 has no integrated graphics listed. This makes the Core i5 a complete system-on-chip solution for mobile platforms. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core i5 offers Gen 4 with only 4 CPU lanes. The Gen 4 interface doubles per-lane bandwidth but offers far fewer total lanes, reflecting the mobile target of the Tiger Lake part. Both chips support ECC memory, a rare feature for the Core i5’s market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 averages 2030, while the Intel Core i5-1145GRE averages 2025. This is a 0.2% difference, placing both at the 45th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the Core i5-1145GRE’s higher boost clock translate into a single-core win?

A: No. Despite boosting to 4.10 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.90 GHz, the Core i5 loses single-core Cinebench R20 416 to 414 and ties at 99 in R15. The Xeon leads single-core R23 991 to 988.

Q: Are the multi-core results close enough to call the matchup a tie?

A: The Xeon wins all three multi-core tests by 0.3% each: R15 at 707 vs 705, R20 at 2948 vs 2940, and R23 at 7020 vs 7001. These margins are statistically negligible.

Q: Which chip supports faster PCIe lanes?

A: The Core i5-1145GRE supports PCIe Gen 4, but only 4 CPU lanes. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon E3-1240 v5 and the Core i5-1145GRE list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The Xeon E3-1240 v5 is end-of-life, released in 2015. The Core i5-1145GRE is active, released in 2020.

Specification Differences

• Base Clock: Xeon E3-1240 v5 at 3.50 GHz vs Core i5-1145GRE at 1500.00 MHz
• Boost Clock: Xeon E3-1240 v5 at 3.90 GHz vs Core i5-1145GRE at 4.10 GHz
• TDP: Xeon E3-1240 v5 at 80W vs Core i5-1145GRE at 28W
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 vs Intel BGA 1449
• Process Node: 14 nm vs 10 nm
• Die Size: 122 mm² vs 144 mm²
• Transistors: 1,750 million vs not listed
• L1 Cache: 64 KB per core vs 80 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 256 KB per core vs 1.25 MB per core
• Memory Support: DDR3, DDR4 vs DDR4, LPDDR4X
• Memory Bandwidth: 34.1 GB/s vs not listed
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes vs Gen 4, 4 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: None vs Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation vs Mobile
• Production Status: End-of-life vs Active
• Release Date: 2015-10-18 vs 2020-09-01
• Launch MSRP: $282 vs $362

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but narrow verdict: the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, holds a higher average benchmark score, and maintains the lead in both single-core and multi-core workloads. However, the maximum delta is only 0.5%, and the average scores differ by just 5 points out of 2030. No benchmark result indicates a meaningful performance advantage for either chip in real-world tasks. The Xeon’s wins are consistent but marginal, making it the nominal victor while the Core i5-1145GRE remains functionally equivalent in raw compute.

The choice between them is dictated by platform and feature priorities, not benchmark scores. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes and a higher 80W TDP, suited for server or workstation motherboards where expansion and sustained load are priorities. The Core i5-1145GRE brings integrated Iris Xe graphics, support for LPDDR4X memory, and a much lower 28W TDP for mobile designs. It also supports PCIe Gen 4, though with only 4 lanes. Both support ECC memory, and both share 8 MB of L3 cache. The Core i5’s 4.10 GHz boost clock is higher, but the Xeon’s 3.50 GHz base clock is far more aggressive, which explains its sustained performance edge.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins in every synthetic benchmark category recorded. It leads multi-core Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 by 0.3% each, and single-core R20 by 0.5%. Its 80W TDP and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it the better fit for a fixed server or workstation chassis where power draw is less constrained and add-in cards require bandwidth. The 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth figure also provides a quantified advantage for memory-intensive workloads, though the Core i5’s bandwidth is unlisted.

The Core i5-1145GRE wins on platform flexibility and efficiency. Its 28W TDP is less than half the Xeon’s, making it viable for fanless or compact mobile designs. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU eliminates the need for a discrete GPU, while PCIe Gen 4 support offers newer connectivity standards. Its 1.25 MB L2 cache per core is substantially larger than the Xeon’s 256 KB, which can reduce memory access latency in certain workloads. The Core i5 also supports LPDDR4X memory, enabling lower-power system memory configurations. For a user choosing between the two, the Xeon is the benchmark winner; the Core i5 is the modern platform winner.