Intel Core i5-1240P vs Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results show a clear split between the two processors, with the Intel Core i5-1240P taking five of the six head-to-head comparisons. The largest margin comes in the Cinebench R15 multicore test, where the i5-1240P scores 1566.5 against the Xeon E5-1680 v3's 1137, a 27.4% advantage. That same workload pattern repeats in R15 single-core, where the mobile chip posts 226 versus 160, a 29.2% lead. These are substantial gaps, and they show that the newer Alder Lake architecture holds a commanding lead in older rendering benchmarks.

The R20 tests tell a similar story, though the margins tighten. The i5-1240P wins multicore with 5632 against 4741, a 15.8% advantage, and matches that exact 15.8% delta in single-core with 795 versus 669. The consistency of the R20 results suggests the i5-1240P's efficiency advantage scales across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The one exception is Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Xeon E5-1680 v3 fights back with a 20.2% win, scoring 11289 against the i5-1240P's 9392. This is the only test where the older server chip takes the lead, and it is a meaningful one. The R23 single-core result is nearly a tie: the i5-1240P edges ahead with 1600 versus 1593, a 0.4% margin that is effectively negligible.

Overall, the database shows the i5-1240P as the stronger performer in most workloads, but the Xeon's R23 multicore victory indicates that sustained multi-threaded rendering can still favor the eight-core Haswell design. The average benchmark score reflects this mixed picture: the Xeon averages 3265 across all tests, while the i5-1240P averages 3202. Both sit at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs tracked, placing them in the same performance tier despite their very different designs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-1240P wins five of the six recorded comparisons, with the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 taking only the Cinebench R23 multicore test.

Q: How large is the i5-1240P's single-core advantage?

A: In Cinebench R15 single-core, the i5-1240P leads by 29.2% (226 versus 160). In R20 single-core, the lead is 15.8% (795 versus 669). In R23 single-core, the margin shrinks to just 0.4% (1600 versus 1593).

Q: Where does the Xeon E5-1680 v3 perform better?

A: The Xeon wins Cinebench R23 multicore with a score of 11289, which is 20.2% ahead of the i5-1240P's 9392. This is its only head-to-head victory.

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

A: Yes, both have 16 threads. The Xeon achieves this with 8 cores, while the i5-1240P uses 12 cores.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Xeon E5-1680 v3 averages 3265, and the i5-1240P averages 3202. Both are at the 53rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The i5-1240P boosts to 4.40 GHz, while the Xeon E5-1680 v3 boosts to 3.80 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-1240P is the clear choice for single-threaded responsiveness and older renderer workloads. Its R15 and R20 victories, both single-core and multi-core, show that it handles legacy software with noticeably better efficiency. The 29.2% R15 single-core lead is particularly relevant for applications that rely on per-core performance, such as older games or lightly threaded productivity tools. The mobile chip's consistent wins across R15 and R20 indicate that it delivers a more balanced experience across a broad range of tasks.

The Xeon E5-1680 v3 earns its place in sustained multi-threaded rendering. The R23 multicore result, where it beats the i5-1240P by 20.2%, suggests that longer-running, heavily threaded workloads can extract more from the server chip's design. The R23 test is generally more demanding than R15 or R20, and the Xeon's ability to pull ahead in that specific scenario points to its strength in prolonged, all-core compute. For users running continuous rendering jobs or scientific simulations that stress all threads for extended periods, the Xeon's R23 win is the deciding factor.

The average benchmark scores show both processors landing at the same percentile, so neither is a dominant overall winner. The i5-1240P wins more tests, but the Xeon wins the most demanding one. That split means the choice comes down to workload type: if the application mix resembles R15 or R20, the i5-1240P is the better pick; if it resembles R23 multicore, the Xeon holds the advantage.

Specification Differences

The core counts differ significantly: the Xeon E5-1680 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the i5-1240P has 12 cores and 16 threads. The i5-1240P relies on a hybrid layout to reach 12 cores, while the Xeon uses a uniform 8-core design. Base clocks are listed as 3.20 GHz for the Xeon and 1700.00 MHz for the i5-1240P, though the i5's boost clock of 4.40 GHz is notably higher than the Xeon's 3.80 GHz.

Power envelopes are far apart: the Xeon carries a 140 W TDP, while the i5-1240P is rated at 28 W. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, whereas the i5-1240P is built for Intel BGA 1744, a soldered mobile socket. Memory support also diverges: the Xeon uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i5-1240P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure recorded. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the i5-1240P does not.

PCIe capabilities differ as well. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes, while the i5-1240P offers Gen 4 with 20 CPU lanes. The i5-1240P includes integrated Iris Xe 80EU graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, while the i5-1240P is locked. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-1240P is an active product.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5-1680 v3 is built on Intel's Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, using a 22 nm process node. Its die size is 356 mm², and it packs 2,600 million transistors. The i5-1240P uses Alder Lake, specifically the Alder Lake-P variant, on a 10 nm process with a die size of 217 mm². The Xeon's larger die and older node reflect its server heritage, while the i5's smaller die and newer node point to a mobile efficiency focus.

Cache layouts are notably different. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a 20 MB shared L3. The i5-1240P offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with a 12 MB shared L3. The per-core L2 on the i5 is substantially larger, which helps with per-thread performance, while the Xeon's larger L3 pool benefits shared data access across its 8 cores.

The Xeon's memory architecture is built for bandwidth: quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s. The i5-1240P's dual-channel setup, even with DDR5 support, is not recorded with a bandwidth figure, but the channel count alone shows the Xeon was designed for memory-heavy server workloads. The i5-1240P's integrated Iris Xe 80EU graphics is a major architectural addition, giving it a full GPU solution that the Xeon lacks entirely. The Xeon's release date of September 2014 and the i5-1240P's February 2022 launch place them nearly eight years apart in design philosophy, with the i5 representing a hybrid big.LITTLE-style approach and the Xeon representing a traditional homogeneous core design.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: pick the Intel Core i5-1240P for general-purpose performance, especially if single-threaded speed and power efficiency matter. It wins five of six head-to-head tests, including all of R15 and R20, and its 28 W TDP makes it far more suitable for compact or mobile systems. The 12-core design with 16 threads delivers comparable multi-threaded results to the Xeon in most workloads, and the integrated Iris Xe graphics removes the need for a separate GPU in basic builds.

Pick the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v3 if the workload is dominated by sustained, heavily threaded rendering similar to Cinebench R23 multicore. Its 20.2% win in that test is the single largest margin in either direction, and it comes in the most demanding benchmark. The Xeon's 140 W TDP, quad-channel DDR4 with ECC support, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it a workstation-class part, but those advantages only matter in specific server or compute scenarios. The i5-1240P's lower power draw, higher boost clock, and modern socket give it the edge for most users, while the Xeon remains relevant only for those who prioritize the one benchmark it wins.