Intel Core i5-1145GRE vs Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 and Intel Core i5-1145GRE are both 4-core, 8-thread processors that land in the same performance percentile, but they represent radically different design eras and market segments. The Xeon E3-1260L v5, a Skylake-era server part, edges out the Tiger Lake-based mobile Core i5-1145GRE in every single benchmark recorded here, yet the margins are razor-thin—never exceeding 0.3%. The data shows a statistical tie in raw compute, with the real differentiators lying in platform, power, and features.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has an average benchmark score of 2029, while the Intel Core i5-1145GRE scores 2025. The Xeon leads by 4 points, a negligible 0.2% difference.

Q: How do the two chips compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Xeon E3-1260L v5 scores 7015, and the Core i5-1145GRE scores 7001. The Xeon wins by 0.2%, which is within run-to-run variance for most workloads.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core i5-1145GRE wins?

A: No. In the head-to-head benchmark data, the Xeon E3-1260L v5 wins all 6 recorded tests. The Core i5-1145GRE's closest result is a tie in Cinebench R15 single-core, where both chips score 99.

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

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel Core i5-1145GRE has a TDP of 28 watts. The Core i5 consumes 17 watts less, making it more power-efficient per the spec sheet.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 and the Intel Core i5-1145GRE list ECC memory support as true. This is a rare point of commonality given their different market segments.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-1145GRE has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon E3-1260L v5's 3.90 GHz. Despite the higher boost clock, the Core i5 does not win any benchmark.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: pick the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 if you need a socketed Socket 1151 platform with PCIe Gen 3, 16 lanes, and a larger 8 MB shared L3 cache in a server or workstation context. It wins all 6 head-to-head benchmarks, albeit by margins of 0.0% to 0.3%. Its 45-watt TDP is higher, but it offers a 2.90 GHz base clock versus the Core i5's 1500.00 MHz base clock, which matters for sustained all-core loads.

Pick the Intel Core i5-1145GRE if you need a mobile or embedded solution with a 28-watt TDP, integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU, and PCIe Gen 4 support (limited to 4 lanes). It is an active production part with a 2020 release date, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life from 2015. The Core i5 also supports LPDDR4X memory, which the Xeon does not.

For pure compute, the Xeon leads, but the performance delta is so small that the platform features and power envelope will likely decide the purchase. The Core i5-1145GRE is the more modern, efficient choice; the Xeon is the legacy workhorse with a slight edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E3-1260L v5 sweeps the board, but the victories are symbolic rather than substantial. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 707 against the Core i5's 705, a 0.3% lead. The single-core test for R15 is a dead tie at 99 points for both. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 2946 multi-core and 415 single-core, versus the Core i5's 2940 and 414—leads of 0.2% in both cases.

The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23. The Xeon's multi-core score of 7015 beats the Core i5's 7001 by 0.2%, and the single-core score of 990 beats 988 by the same margin. Across all six tests, the average delta is roughly 0.2%, which is well within the noise floor of Cinebench runs. The benchmark results indicate that these two CPUs are functionally identical in rendering workloads, despite the 5-year gap in release dates.

The Core i5-1145GRE's higher 4.10 GHz boost clock does not translate into a single win. The Xeon's lower 3.90 GHz boost clock is paired with a higher 2.90 GHz base clock, which suggests better sustained frequency behavior under load. The data shows that the Xeon's Skylake architecture, despite being older, delivers marginally better throughput in every recorded test.

Specification Differences

The most glaring difference is the socket. The Xeon E3-1260L v5 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the Core i5-1145GRE uses Intel BGA 1449—the latter is soldered, making the Xeon the only upgradeable option in a traditional sense. The Xeon's TDP is 45 watts versus the Core i5's 28 watts, a significant gap for thermal design.

The base clocks are wildly different: the Xeon runs at 2.90 GHz, while the Core i5's base clock is listed at 1500.00 MHz. The boost clocks reverse the order, with the Core i5 reaching 4.10 GHz and the Xeon topping out at 3.90 GHz. The process node also differs: the Xeon is built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the Core i5 uses a 10 nm process. The die sizes reflect this, with the Xeon at 122 mm² and the Core i5 at 144 mm².

Memory support diverges: the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4, while the Core i5 supports DDR4 and LPDDR4X. The Xeon lists a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the Core i5 does not list a bandwidth figure. PCIe capabilities differ sharply: the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Core i5 offers Gen 4 with only 4 CPU lanes. The Core i5 features integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU; the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed.

The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $294. The Core i5 has a launch MSRP of $362. The production statuses confirm the generational gap: the Xeon is end-of-life, and the Core i5 is active.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E3-1260L v5 is built on the Skylake architecture (codename Skylake-DT) from the Xeon E3 generation, produced on a 14 nm node with 1,750 million transistors. Its cache layout is conservative: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. This is a desktop-derived server chip with a straightforward design.

The Core i5-1145GRE uses the Tiger Lake architecture (codename Tiger Lake-U) from the Core i5 generation, built on a 10 nm node. The transistor count is not listed, but the die size is larger at 144 mm². Its cache hierarchy is more generous: 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The L2 cache is nearly five times larger per core, which should help with data locality, yet the benchmark scores do not reflect an advantage.

The core microarchitectures differ fundamentally: Skylake versus Willow Cove. The Tiger Lake chip integrates Iris Xe Graphics, a feature absent on the Xeon. The Core i5 also supports PCIe Gen 4, a newer standard, but with far fewer lanes. The Xeon's ECC memory support and 16 PCIe lanes point to its server pedigree, while the Core i5's integrated graphics and LPDDR4X support target mobile efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 wins in every recorded benchmark, so it is the choice for peak compute performance in Cinebench workloads. Its 45-watt TDP and Socket 1151 platform make it suitable for compact servers or workstations where sustained multi-core rendering is the priority. The 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for multiple expansion cards, and the 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth provides a solid foundation for memory-intensive tasks. The 2.90 GHz base clock is a key advantage for workloads that run at all-core sustained frequencies.

The Intel Core i5-1145GRE wins on platform modernity and efficiency. Its 28-watt TDP is nearly half that of the Xeon, making it ideal for fanless or passively cooled mobile designs. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The 10 nm process and LPDDR4X memory support enable lower power consumption and smaller form factors. Its PCIe Gen 4 interface, while limited to 4 lanes, offers higher per-lane bandwidth for NVMe storage.

In terms of longevity, the Core i5 is an active production part, while the Xeon is end-of-life. If the application requires a socketed CPU with upgrade potential, the Xeon wins. If the application requires a compact, power-efficient, actively produced mobile processor, the Core i5 wins. The benchmark scores suggest that neither chip leaves the other behind in raw speed, so the decision rests entirely on the platform and feature set.