Intel Core i7-3820 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-3820 wins every single benchmark recorded in the database, six out of six head-to-head comparisons. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 does not take a single test. But the margins are consistently narrow, which tells a more interesting story than a simple sweep.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7-3820 scores 496 against the Xeon's 486, a 2.1% advantage. Single-core R15 is closer still: 69 versus 68, a 1.5% gap. The pattern repeats across every generation of the Cinebench suite. R20 multi-core shows 2067 versus 2027, a 2% lead. R20 single-core: 291 versus 286, a 1.7% edge. R23 multi-core: 4923 versus 4827, again 2%. R23 single-core: 695 versus 681, closing out with a 2.1% margin.

The largest single delta in the entire comparison is 2.1%, appearing twice: in R15 multi-core and R23 single-core. The smallest is 1.5% in R15 single-core. What this means is that the i7-3820 is consistently ahead, but never by a dramatic amount. No benchmark shows a double-digit percentage difference, no test reveals a weakness in either part.

The average benchmark score confirms the head-to-head results. The i7-3820 averages 1424 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 averages 1396. That is a 28-point gap, roughly 2%, which aligns perfectly with the individual test deltas. Both processors sit at the 37th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier despite the consistent lead for the i7-3820.

Context from nearest rivals reinforces the picture. The i7-3820's closest competitors in the database include the Intel Xeon Bronze 3106 with an average score of 1422 (a 0.1% difference), the Intel Core i5-4570S at 1426 (0.2% behind the i7), and the Intel Core i7-3720QM at 1421 (0.2% ahead of the i7). The Xeon E3-1240L v3, meanwhile, sits near the Intel Core i5-6500TE at 1399 (0.2% ahead of the Xeon) and the Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 at 1401 (0.4% ahead). These external comparisons show that both chips are clustered with mid-range desktop and server parts from their respective eras, with no dramatic outliers.

Where Each One Wins

The win distribution requires careful wording: the i7-3820 wins all six recorded benchmarks, so the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has zero wins in this dataset. However, the nature of those wins matters for real-world interpretation.

The i7-3820's advantage is consistent across both multi-core and single-core workloads. Multi-core tests show a 2% to 2.1% lead, while single-core tests show a 1.5% to 2.1% lead. This means the i7-3820 is not just faster in heavily threaded scenarios; it also holds a slight edge in lightly threaded tasks. There is no workload category in the recorded benchmarks where the Xeon pulls ahead.

That said, the Xeon's only claim to a win comes from outside the raw benchmark scores. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports ECC memory, while the i7-3820 does not. For workloads that require error-correcting memory, the Xeon is the only viable choice between these two, regardless of the benchmark numbers. The Xeon also draws far less power, with a 25-watt TDP compared to the i7-3820's 130 watts. In scenarios where sustained computational throughput is less important than thermal envelope or energy draw, the Xeon's efficiency profile gives it a practical advantage that no benchmark delta can overcome.

The i7-3820, by contrast, offers a higher boost clock: 3.80 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.00 GHz. That clock advantage likely explains the consistent single-core lead. The i7 also has a larger L3 cache at 10 MB shared versus 8 MB shared, which can help with cache-sensitive workloads. Neither processor has integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU.

The Verdict

The data says this: the Intel Core i7-3820 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded. If the only question is raw Cinebench performance, the i7-3820 wins, period. It leads by roughly 2% across all six tests, with no exceptions. Anyone choosing purely on benchmark scores should pick the i7-3820.

However, the verdict changes when the full specification profile enters the picture. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 offers ECC memory support, a feature absent from the i7-3820. For server or workstation environments where data integrity matters more than a 2% performance delta, the Xeon is the correct choice. The Xeon also operates at a dramatically lower TDP, 25 watts versus 130 watts, which makes it suitable for compact, low-power, or passively cooled systems where the i7-3820 would be impractical.

The i7-3820's 40 PCIe Gen 2 lanes versus the Xeon's 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes is another differentiator. The i7 provides more physical lanes for expansion, though the Xeon's lanes are a newer generation. For multi-GPU or high-expansion desktop builds, the i7-3820 has a structural advantage. For a typical single-GPU server workload, the Xeon's 16 lanes are sufficient.

The release dates also matter. The i7-3820 launched in February 2012, the Xeon in May 2014. The Xeon is built on a 22 nm process versus 32 nm for the i7, and it packs 1,400 million transistors into a 160 mm² die, compared to 1,270 million transistors in 294 mm². That architectural maturity explains how the Xeon nearly matches the i7's performance while consuming a fraction of the power.

The verdict splits cleanly: benchmark chasers take the i7-3820. System builders needing ECC, low power, or a newer platform take the Xeon E3-1240L v3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i7-3820 scores 4923, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 scores 4827. The i7-3820 leads by 2%.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1240L v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-3820 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?

A: The Core i7-3820 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a TDP of 25 watts. That is a 105-watt difference in favor of the Xeon.

Q: Do either of these processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. Both the Intel Core i7-3820 and the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 have no integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth for each processor?

A: The Core i7-3820 supports quad-channel DDR3 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i7-3820 boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 boosts to 3.00 GHz. The i7-3820's boost is 0.80 GHz higher.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and generations. The Core i7-3820 is based on Sandy Bridge, specifically the Sandy Bridge-E variant, released in February 2012. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 is based on Haswell, specifically Haswell-WS, released in May 2014.

The manufacturing process differs substantially. The i7-3820 uses a 32 nm process with 1,270 million transistors on a 294 mm² die. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The Xeon packs more transistors into roughly half the die area, which explains its dramatically lower power consumption.

Cache configurations differ in the L3 tier. The i7-3820 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have the same per-core L1 and L2 allocations: 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core.

Memory architecture diverges significantly. The i7-3820 supports quad-channel DDR3 with a theoretical bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. The i7-3820 has exactly double the memory bandwidth on paper.

PCIe support also differs. The i7-3820 provides 40 PCIe Gen 2 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The i7 offers more lanes, but the Xeon's lanes are a newer generation with higher per-lane bandwidth.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon E3-1240L v3. The i7-3820 does not support ECC. The Xeon's market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, while the i7-3820 is a Desktop part.

The sockets are incompatible. The i7-3820 uses Intel Socket 2011, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses Intel Socket 1150. There is no cross-compatibility between these platforms.

Specification Differences

The table of differences is clear and direct. Both processors have 4 cores and 8 threads, so core and thread counts are identical. The base clock differs: the i7-3820 runs at 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 runs at 2.00 GHz. The boost clock also differs: 3.80 GHz for the i7, 3.00 GHz for the Xeon.

TDP is the most dramatic specification gap. The i7-3820 draws 130 watts, the Xeon E3-1240L v3 draws 25 watts. That is a 5.2x difference in favor of the Xeon.

Memory support: both use DDR3, but the i7-3820 has a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. ECC support is present only on the Xeon.

PCIe: the i7-3820 has 40 Gen 2 lanes, the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 16 Gen 3 lanes. Socket types differ: Socket 2011 for the i7, Socket 1150 for the Xeon.

The multiplier is unlocked on the i7-3820, allowing overclocking. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a locked multiplier. Process node: 32 nm for the i7, 22 nm for the Xeon. Transistor count: 1,270 million for the i7, 1,400 million for the Xeon. Die size: 294 mm² for the i7, 160 mm² for the Xeon.

Launch MSRP: the i7-3820 was $305 at launch, the Xeon E3-1240L v3 was $278 at launch. Both are end-of-life production parts.

The Xeon E3-1240L v3 is the newer, more efficient, more server-oriented part. The i7-3820 is the older, higher-clocked, higher-power desktop part with more memory bandwidth and more PCIe lanes. The specification sheet tells the same story as the benchmarks: the i7 wins on raw throughput metrics, the Xeon wins on efficiency and server features.