Intel Core i5-1240P vs Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 and the Intel Core i5-1240P is not a clean sweep in either direction. The data across six Cinebench tests shows the Core i5-1240P winning five tests, while the Xeon E5-1660 v4 claims one decisive victory. The overall pattern reveals a fundamental shift in where each processor excels.

The Core i5-1240P dominates in multi-core workloads from the older Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i5-1240P scores 1566.5 against the Xeon's 1137, a 27.4% advantage. The gap narrows in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Core i5-1240P scores 5632 versus 4739, a 15.9% lead. These results indicate that the mobile chip's hybrid architecture scales effectively across many threads in these specific tests.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, with the Core i5-1240P ahead in every single-core test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core i5-1240P scores 226 against the Xeon's 160, a 29.2% advantage, the largest margin of any test. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 795 versus 669, a 15.8% lead. Even in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the gap is smallest, the Core i5-1240P still edges ahead at 1600 versus 1593, a marginal 0.4% difference.

The Xeon E5-1660 v4's sole win comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where it scores 11285 against the Core i5-1240P's 9392. This 20.2% advantage is substantial and reverses the trend seen in the earlier Cinebench versions. The Xeon's 20 MB of shared L3 cache and eight fully homogeneous Broadwell cores appear to handle this newer workload more efficiently than the hybrid Alder Lake arrangement.

The average benchmark scores place the two processors nearly level. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 has an average benchmark score of 3264, while the Core i5-1240P sits at 3202. Both processors sit at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, indicating that despite their architectural differences and divergent benchmark results, they occupy a similar overall performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from very different eras and design philosophies. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 is based on the Broadwell-EP architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process node, with a die size of 246 mm² and 3,400 million transistors. The Core i5-1240P uses the Alder Lake-P architecture on a 10 nm process node, with a die size of 217 mm². The transistor count for the Core i5-1240P is not recorded in the database.

Core configurations differ significantly. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 has 8 cores and 16 threads, all using the same architecture. The Core i5-1240P has 12 cores and 16 threads, employing the hybrid Alder Lake design that combines performance and efficiency cores. Both processors have 16 threads total, but the Core i5-1240P achieves this with fewer threads per core, reflecting its hybrid structure.

Cache hierarchies are notably different. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 uses 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 20 MB L3 cache. The Core i5-1240P has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache likely contributes to its strong Cinebench R23 multi-core showing.

Memory support separates the two as well. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, providing a recorded memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core i5-1240P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, though its memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-1240P does not.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. The Core i5-1240P provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The newer standard on the mobile chip offers higher per-lane bandwidth, while the older server-class chip offers more lanes overall.

The Core i5-1240P includes integrated graphics in the form of Iris Xe 80EU, while the Xeon E5-1660 v4 has no integrated graphics recorded. This difference matters for systems that rely on the processor alone for display output.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1660 v4 wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core with a 20.2% lead over the Core i5-1240P. This result suggests that sustained multi-threaded workloads that resemble modern rendering tasks favor the Xeon's eight large cores with substantial L3 cache. The Xeon's quad-channel memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s also supports memory-intensive server and workstation workloads.

The Core i5-1240P wins in all other recorded benchmarks. Its single-core advantages are consistent across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, with margins of 29.2%, 15.8%, and 0.4% respectively. The older Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests also favor the Core i5-1240P by 27.4% and 15.9%. This broad pattern indicates that the Core i5-1240P is the stronger choice for general productivity, lightly threaded applications, and workloads that use the Cinebench R15 or R20 rendering paths.

The Xeon's 140 W TDP versus the Core i5-1240P's 28 W TDP is a significant operational difference. The Xeon draws substantially more power, which is expected for a desktop-class server chip, while the Core i5-1240P is designed for mobile platforms with much lower power consumption.

The production status differs as well. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 is marked end-of-life, while the Core i5-1240P is active. The release dates show the Xeon arriving in 2016 and the Core i5-1240P in 2022.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Xeon E5-1660 v4 has 8 cores, while the Core i5-1240P has 12 cores. Both have 16 threads. Base clock speeds are recorded as 3.20 GHz for the Xeon and 1700.00 MHz for the Core i5-1240P, though this base clock figure for the mobile chip likely reflects its efficiency core base. Boost clocks are 3.80 GHz for the Xeon and 4.40 GHz for the Core i5-1240P.

TDP is a major differentiator: the Xeon E5-1660 v4 is rated at 140 W, while the Core i5-1240P is rated at 28 W. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Core i5-1240P uses Intel BGA 1744, a soldered mobile socket. The Xeon is a desktop market segment part, while the Core i5-1240P is a mobile part.

Process nodes differ: 14 nm for the Xeon, 10 nm for the Core i5-1240P. The Xeon has a larger die at 246 mm² compared to 217 mm² for the Core i5-1240P. The Xeon's transistor count is recorded at 3,400 million, while the Core i5-1240P's is not recorded.

Cache layouts differ in both per-core and shared amounts. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 20 MB shared L3. The Core i5-1240P has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3.

Memory support: the Xeon supports DDR4 over quad-channel with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. The Core i5-1240P supports DDR4 and DDR5 over dual-channel with no recorded bandwidth and no ECC support. PCIe: the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes, the Core i5-1240P offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes.

The Core i5-1240P has integrated Iris Xe 80EU graphics; the Xeon has none. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1113; the Core i5-1240P has no launch MSRP recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon part number is SR2PK, the Core i5-1240P is SRLD9.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 wins Cinebench R23 multi-core with a score of 11285, which is 20.2% higher than the Intel Core i5-1240P's 9392.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R15?

A: The Intel Core i5-1240P leads by 29.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core, scoring 226 against the Xeon E5-1660 v4's 160.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of threads?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 and the Intel Core i5-1240P have 16 threads, though the Xeon achieves this with 8 cores and the Core i5-1240P with 12 cores.

Q: What memory bandwidth does the Xeon E5-1660 v4 provide?

A: The Xeon E5-1660 v4 provides 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth over a quad-channel DDR4 bus.

Q: Does the Core i5-1240P support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core i5-1240P does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon E5-1660 v4 does.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-1240P includes Iris Xe 80EU integrated graphics, while the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 has no integrated graphics recorded.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-1240P is the better choice for most workloads based on the benchmark data. It wins five of the six recorded tests, including all single-core tests and the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests. Its advantages range from 0.4% in Cinebench R23 single-core to 29.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core. The Core i5-1240P also offers a much lower TDP of 28 W versus 140 W for the Xeon, making it suitable for mobile platforms with limited cooling and power budgets.

The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4 is the better choice for workloads that resemble Cinebench R23 multi-core rendering. Its 20.2% lead in that specific test, combined with its 20 MB shared L3 cache, quad-channel memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and ECC support, makes it a viable option for server or workstation tasks that require high sustained multi-threaded throughput and memory reliability. The Xeon's 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also provide more expansion capacity than the Core i5-1240P's 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes.

Users who prioritize modern single-threaded responsiveness, lower power consumption, integrated graphics, and strong performance across most rendering benchmarks should select the Intel Core i5-1240P. Users who need ECC memory, more PCIe lanes, and superior performance in the Cinebench R23 multi-core workload should select the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v4, keeping in mind its end-of-life production status and higher power draw. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical at 3264 for the Xeon and 3202 for the Core i5-1240P, confirming that these processors are closely matched overall despite their very different architectures and target platforms.