Intel Core i7-3615QM vs Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the Intel Core i7-3615QM wins every single head-to-head test recorded in the database. Across six Cinebench workloads, the mobile Ivy Bridge chip takes the top spot in all of them, while the Xeon E3-1235L v5 does not secure a single victory. That is a 6 to 0 sweep, and it holds across both single-core and multi-core tests.

The margins are consistent, though not dramatic. In multi-core workloads, the i7-3615QM leads by roughly 3% in every iteration. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 442 versus 429, a 3% edge. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1845 versus 1789, a 3.1% gap. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 4393 versus 4261, again 3.1%. The pattern is remarkably stable, suggesting the advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

Single-core results follow the same trend. The i7-3615QM posts 62 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 60 for the Xeon, a 3.3% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it is 260 versus 252, a 3.2% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 620 versus 601, also 3.2%. The mobile part consistently outperforms the server chip by roughly three points in percentage terms, regardless of the Cinebench version used.

For users choosing based purely on raw compute throughput, the i7-3615QM is the stronger candidate in every measurable category. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 does not offer a single benchmark where it pulls ahead. That said, the overall average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The i7-3615QM sits at an average score of 1260, while the Xeon trails at 1232. Both land at the 34th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy similar performance tiers relative to the broader market.

The Xeon does have one advantage that the benchmark scores do not capture: it is a server and workstation part with ECC memory support, dual-channel DDR3 and DDR4 memory support, and a rated memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The i7-3615QM has no listed memory support details and does not support ECC. For workloads that require error-correcting memory, the Xeon is the only viable option here, even if it loses every raw performance test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from very different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-3615QM is built on Ivy Bridge, a 22 nm process, while the Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 uses Skylake-DT on a 14 nm node. The process shrink gives the Xeon a smaller die size of 122 mm² compared to 160 mm² for the i7-3615QM, despite the Xeon having more transistors. The i7-3615QM packs 1,400 million transistors, while the Xeon has 1,750 million.

Core and thread counts are where the two diverge sharply. Both have four physical cores, but the i7-3615QM supports hyper-threading, bringing its thread count to eight. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 is limited to four threads with no hyper-threading. That thread advantage is likely why the i7-3615QM maintains its multi-core lead despite the Xeon's newer architecture and larger shared cache.

The cache layouts are similar in structure but differ in total L3 capacity. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache, however, is 6 MB shared on the i7-3615QM versus 8 MB shared on the Xeon. The Xeon's additional 2 MB of L3 cache is not enough to overcome the i7's extra threads in the Cinebench suite.

Clock speeds also differ. The i7-3615QM has a base clock of 2.30 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The i7 runs at higher frequencies at both ends, which contributes to its single-core wins. The Xeon's power envelope is far lower, however, with a 25 W TDP versus 45 W for the mobile chip. That makes the Xeon significantly more power-efficient on paper, a meaningful consideration for dense server deployments.

Memory support is another major differentiator. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a rated memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for reliability-sensitive workloads. The i7-3615QM lists no memory support details beyond dual-channel operation and does not support ECC. The Xeon also exposes PCI Express Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i7-3615QM has no PCIe details recorded.

Integrated graphics are present on both. The i7-3615QM includes Intel HD 4000, while the Xeon E3-3615QM features HD Graphics P530. Neither is a primary selling point for their respective market segments, which are mobile computing for the i7 and server and workstation computing for the Xeon.

The Xeon is marked end-of-life in the database, and its launch MSRP was $250. The i7-3615QM has no launch MSRP listed. The release dates are also far apart, with the i7-3615QM launching in 2012-04-28 and the Xeon launching in 2015-10-18.

The Verdict

The data says the Intel Core i7-3615QM is the faster processor for compute-heavy tasks. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, and the margins are consistent across the board. If the workload is purely about Cinebench-style rendering or multi-threaded throughput, the i7-3615QM is the pick. Its eight threads give it a structural advantage over the Xeon's four threads, and its higher clock speeds reinforce that lead in single-core tests.

The Xeon E3-1235L v5 is the pick for a different reason. It supports ECC memory, which the i7-3615QM does not offer. For anyone running a server or workstation that requires error-correcting memory, the Xeon is the only choice regardless of the benchmark scores. The Xeon also draws far less power at 25 W versus 45 W, which matters in dense server environments where thermal and power budgets are tight. The Xeon's support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory and its 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth add flexibility for system builders.

The production status of the Xeon is end-of-life, which is worth noting for long-term procurement planning. The i7-3615QM has no production status recorded in the database.

For a general-purpose mobile or desktop build where ECC is not required, the i7-3615QM is the better performer. For a server or workstation where data integrity and power efficiency take priority, the Xeon E3-1235L v5 is the better fit, even though it loses every compute benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-3615QM wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 442 versus 429 in R15, 1845 versus 1789 in R20, and 4393 versus 4261 in R23, with margins of 3%, 3.1%, and 3.1% respectively.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E3-1235L v5 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-3615QM does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: The i7-3615QM leads in every single-core test. It scores 62 versus 60 in Cinebench R15, 260 versus 252 in R20, and 620 versus 601 in R23. The margins range from 3.2% to 3.3%.

Q: What are the thread counts for each processor?

A: The i7-3615QM has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E3-1235L v5 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-3615QM has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E3-1235L v5 has a 25 W TDP. The i7-3615QM has a 45 W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database are all Cinebench tests, and all six favor the Intel Core i7-3615QM. The largest single-core margin comes in Cinebench R15, where the i7 scores 62 against the Xeon's 60, a 3.3% advantage. That is the biggest percentage gap in the entire comparison. The other single-core tests show 3.2% margins: 260 versus 252 in R20 and 620 versus 601 in R23.

Multi-core margins are nearly identical across all three versions. Cinebench R15 shows 442 versus 429, a 3% difference. Cinebench R20 shows 1845 versus 1789, a 3.1% difference. Cinebench R23 shows 4393 versus 4261, also 3.1%. The consistency of these numbers suggests the i7's advantage comes from its thread count rather than any architectural superiority, since the Xeon's newer Skylake design and larger 8 MB L3 cache cannot close the gap.

The Xeon's best showing relative to the i7 is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where it trails by the smallest margin at 3%. Its worst showing is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it trails by 3.3%. Neither processor has an outlier result, and the performance relationship is stable across every workload in the dataset.

The overall average benchmark scores align with these results. The i7-3615QM averages 1260 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Xeon averages 1232. The i7 also has Geekbench results recorded, with a multi-core score of 1907 and a single-core score of 554, though the Xeon has no Geekbench data for comparison. Both CPUs sit at the 34th percentile among all processors in the database, placing them in the same performance tier despite the Xeon's lower average score.

Rival comparisons reinforce the positioning. The i7-3615QM sits near the AMD Athlon 200GE, which has an average score of 1261 and a delta of 0%, and the Intel Core i3-7100T at 1258 with a 0.2% delta. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 sits near the Intel Core i3-8109U and Intel Pentium Gold G6600, both at 1235 with a delta of -0.2%, and the Intel Core i5-2500 at 1220 with a 1% delta. Interestingly, the Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3610QM at 1244 with a delta of -1%, which is essentially the same chip as the i7-3615QM with a slightly different part number. That comparison shows the Xeon trailing a close relative of its competitor by roughly one percent on average.