Intel Core i5-6500TE vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-6500TE and the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 are both end-of-life, low-power Intel processors, but they target different platforms and design philosophies. The data reveals a consistent performance advantage for the older Xeon part across every benchmark in the comparison, despite the Core i5 being from a newer generation. This head-to-head is a study in how core count and thread count can overcome architectural generation gaps.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The margin is remarkably consistent, hovering near 12% in every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 486 against the Core i5-6500TE's 428, a delta of -11.9% for the i5. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap, with the Xeon posting 68 points to the i5's 60, a -11.8% difference.

This pattern persists in newer benchmarks. In Cinebench R20, the Xeon delivers 2027 multi-core and 286 single-core, while the Core i5 manages 1787 and 252 respectively, again a -11.8% and -11.9% delta. The gap remains constant in Cinebench R23, where the Xeon's 4827 multi-core score eclipses the i5's 4255, and its 681 single-core score beats the i5's 600. In both cases, the delta is -11.9%.

The sole benchmark where the Core i5 has data that the Xeon lacks is Geekbench, where it scores 2749 multi-core and 1062 single-core. However, since the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench scores in the data, these cannot be directly compared. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the Xeon averages 1396, while the Core i5 averages 1399. The deltaPct between them is a mere 0.2%, indicating that despite the Xeon's consistent victory in the Cinebench suite, the overall average is nearly identical. This is because the Core i5's Geekbench scores are included in its average, pulling it up, whereas the Xeon's average only reflects its Cinebench results.

The Xeon's win rate is a perfect 6-0. This is not a marginal victory; it is a clean sweep across all available comparative tests. The consistent ~12% margin suggests a fundamental advantage in the Xeon's execution, not a benchmark-specific quirk.

Architecture Differences

The performance disparity stems from distinct architectural choices. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 is a Haswell-WS part built on Intel’s 22 nm process. It features 4 cores and 8 threads, utilizing Hyper-Threading to double its logical core count. Its transistor count is listed at 1,400 million, and its die size is 160 mm².

In contrast, the Core i5-6500TE is a Skylake part built on the newer 14 nm process. It also has 4 cores, but it is limited to 4 threads, with no Hyper-Threading support. The data does not list its transistor count, but its die size is smaller at 122 mm². The combination of a newer process node and a smaller die suggests the i5 is a more compact design, yet it cannot overcome the Xeon's thread advantage.

Cache configurations also differ. The Xeon has a larger shared L3 cache of 8 MB, while the Core i5 has 6 MB. Both have the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes of 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. This additional 2 MB of L3 cache gives the Xeon a potential advantage in workloads that benefit from larger working sets.

The platforms are entirely different. The Core i5-6500TE uses the Intel Socket 1151, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses the older Intel Socket 1150. This means they are not interchangeable. Memory support also diverges: the Core i5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The Xeon is limited to DDR3, also dual-channel, with a lower bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

Another critical difference is ECC memory support. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature essential for server and workstation stability, while the Core i5 does not. The Xeon also has no integrated graphics, whereas the Core i5 includes HD Graphics 530. This makes the Xeon a pure compute part, while the Core i5 can serve in a system without a discrete GPU.

The power envelopes are notable. The Xeon has a TDP of 25 watts, which is lower than the Core i5's 35 watts. This makes the Xeon more power-efficient in terms of rated TDP, despite its older process node and larger die. The Xeon's base clock is listed as 2000.00 MHz with a boost of 3.00 GHz, while the Core i5 has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost of 3.30 GHz. The Core i5 has higher clock speeds, but it still loses in benchmarks, underscoring the Xeon's efficiency in executing instructions.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is the superior performer in every direct comparison available. Its 8 threads provide a consistent ~12% lead over the Core i5-6500TE's 4 threads across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both single-core and multi-core. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and a lower TDP of 25 watts, making it a more robust and power-efficient choice for its intended server/workstation segment.

The Core i5-6500TE, however, has its own advantages. It supports faster memory with a bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s and includes integrated graphics. It is also a newer design on a 14 nm process with a smaller die. For a desktop system where a discrete GPU is not needed and memory flexibility is desired, the Core i5 is the more practical part.

The choice depends entirely on the workload. For multi-threaded compute tasks, error-checking memory requirements, or low-power server roles, the Xeon E3-1240L v3 is the clear winner. For a basic desktop build with integrated graphics and faster memory support, the Core i5-6500TE is the appropriate selection. The data does not support a scenario where the Core i5 outperforms the Xeon in raw compute.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-6500TE | Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2000.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Haswell |

| Codename | Skylake | Haswell-WS |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | Not specified | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 122 mm² | 160 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Integrated Graphics | HD Graphics 530 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Part Number | SR2LR | SR1T8 |

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is faster. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4827 versus the Core i5-6500TE's 4255, a -11.9% delta for the i5. The Xeon also wins in R15 (486 vs 428) and R20 (2027 vs 1787).

Q: Does the Core i5-6500TE have an advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins all single-core tests as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 681 while the Core i5 scores 600, a -11.9% delta.

Q: Can I use the same motherboard for both CPUs?

A: No. The Core i5-6500TE uses the Intel Socket 1151, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses the Intel Socket 1150. These are physically different sockets and are not compatible.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-6500TE does not have this feature.

Q: Which processor has a lower rated power consumption?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a lower TDP of 25 watts, compared to the Core i5-6500TE's TDP of 35 watts.

Q: Does the Core i5-6500TE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i5-6500TE includes HD Graphics 530. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.