Intel Xeon D-1528 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison
Intel Xeon D-1528
Xeon E5-1620 v3
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Xeon D-1528 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data is remarkably consistent across every Cinebench test: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all six recorded comparisons, but by margins that are surprisingly narrow given the architectural differences. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-1620 v3 scores 595 against 584 for the Xeon D-1528, a 1.9% lead. The single-core R15 result is similar: 84 versus 82, a 2.4% advantage. These are not the kind of blowout numbers that typically separate a high-clock workstation part from a low-power embedded server chip.
Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The E5-1620 v3 posts 2482 multi-core and 350 single-core, while the D-1528 manages 2435 and 343 respectively. That translates to a 1.9% multi-core gap and an even 2% single-core gap. The R23 results tell the same story: 5910 versus 5799 multi-core (1.9% delta) and 834 versus 818 single-core (2% delta). Across all six benchmarks, the E5-1620 v3 wins every time, but the largest margin is just 2.4%.
What does this mean in practice? The E5-1620 v3 is consistently the faster part, but the D-1528 is never far behind. A 2% difference in Cinebench scores is within the noise of many real-world workloads, especially those that scale with memory bandwidth or cache behavior rather than raw core clock. The data shows a clear winner, but not a decisive one.
The aggregate benchmark scores reinforce this. The E5-1620 v3 averages 1709 across all recorded tests, while the D-1528 averages 1677. Both chips sit at the 40th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same performance tier. The nearest rivals for the E5-1620 v3 include the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 at exactly 1709 (0% delta), the Intel Core i7-990X at 1713 (-0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U at 1715 (-0.4%). The D-1528's closest neighbors are the Intel Core i5-4690K at 1682 (-0.3%), the Intel Core i7-5850HQ at 1688 (-0.6%), and the Intel Core i7-6700TE at 1666 (+0.6%). Both chips are essentially competing with mid-range desktop processors from several generations ago, not with modern high-core-count server parts.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different Intel design eras and target different physical layouts. The E5-1620 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture using a 22 nm process, while the D-1528 uses the Broadwell architecture on a 14 nm node. That process shrink is significant: the D-1528 packs more transistors into a smaller die. The E5-1620 v3 has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, while the D-1528 has 3,200 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. The D-1528 achieves 23% more transistors in 31% less area, a direct result of the denser 14 nm manufacturing.
Core counts differ as well. The E5-1620 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the D-1528 has 6 cores and 12 threads. This is a 50% core advantage for the D-1528, yet the benchmark results show the E5-1620 v3 still winning, which points to the enormous clock speed difference. The E5-1620 v3 runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, while the D-1528 runs at just 1.90 GHz base and 2.50 GHz boost. That is a 1.6 GHz base clock gap and a 1.1 GHz boost clock gap. In single-threaded workloads, the E5-1620 v3's clock advantage simply overwhelms the D-1528's extra cores.
Cache layouts also differ substantially. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache configuration is different. The E5-1620 v3 has a shared 10 MB L3 pool, while the D-1528 has 1.5 MB per core, which works out to 9 MB total across six cores. The E5-1620 v3 has slightly more total L3, but the per-core allocation on the D-1528 is higher for individual threads.
Memory support is another major split. The E5-1620 v3 uses DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus and a rated bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The D-1528 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but only on a dual-channel bus, and the database does not record a bandwidth figure for it. This is a significant difference for memory-heavy workloads. The E5-1620 v3 also has more PCIe lanes: 40 lanes of Gen 3 versus 24 lanes of Gen 3 on the D-1528. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for server-class parts.
The sockets are completely incompatible. The E5-1620 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a large LGA platform, while the D-1528 is a BGA 1667 soldered chip. The D-1528 is not upgradeable or replaceable in the traditional sense; it is mounted directly to the board. The E5-1620 v3 is a drop-in processor for a standard socket. Their production statuses reflect this: the E5-1620 v3 is end-of-life, while the D-1528 is still active. The release dates also differ, with the E5-1620 v3 launching in September 2014 and the D-1528 in October 2015.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?
A: The Intel Xeon D-1528 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The D-1528 has a 50% core advantage.
Q: Why does the E5-1620 v3 win benchmarks despite having fewer cores?
A: The E5-1620 v3 has a 3.50 GHz base clock and 3.60 GHz boost clock, compared to 1.90 GHz base and 2.50 GHz boost on the D-1528. In the recorded Cinebench tests, this clock advantage is enough to overcome the D-1528's extra cores, with the E5-1620 v3 winning all six comparisons.
Q: What is the performance gap between the two in multi-core workloads?
A: The E5-1620 v3 leads by 1.9% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. The scores are 595 versus 584 in R15, 2482 versus 2435 in R20, and 5910 versus 5799 in R23.
Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?
A: The E5-1620 v3 wins single-core tests by 2.4% in R15 (84 versus 82) and by 2% in both R20 (350 versus 343) and R23 (834 versus 818). The margins are consistent across all three versions of Cinebench.
Q: What are the memory channel differences?
A: The E5-1620 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a rated bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The D-1528 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 but only on a dual-channel bus. The database lists no memory bandwidth figure for the D-1528.
Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?
A: Yes, both are at the 40th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The E5-1620 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1709, and the D-1528 has 1677.
The Verdict
The data points to a clear but narrow victory for the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 in raw benchmark performance. It wins every recorded Cinebench test, and its average benchmark score is 1709 versus 1677 for the D-1528. If the only question is which chip renders Cinebench frames faster, the answer is the E5-1620 v3, every time, by about 2%.
However, the D-1528 offers a fundamentally different trade-off that the benchmark scores do not capture. It has 50% more cores, a much smaller 14 nm process node, and a 35 watt TDP versus 140 watts for the E5-1620 v3. That is a 105 watt difference in power draw. The D-1528 is also an active production part, while the E5-1620 v3 is end-of-life. The D-1528 has a recorded launch MSRP of $320, while the E5-1620 v3 has no launch MSRP in the database.
The verdict depends on what the system needs to do. For raw single-threaded speed and memory bandwidth, the E5-1620 v3 is the better choice. Its quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth and higher clocks make it suitable for workloads that favor fewer, faster threads. For multi-threaded throughput with far less power consumption, the D-1528 is the more sensible pick. Its six cores and 12 threads provide more parallel capacity, and its 35 watt TDP makes it practical for dense, low-power server deployments. The 2% benchmark deficit is a small price for a 75% reduction in power draw.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The E5-1620 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the D-1528 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 1.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 2.50 GHz. TDP is 140 watts for the E5-1620 v3 and 35 watts for the D-1528. The E5-1620 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the D-1528 uses Intel BGA 1667.
The architectures differ: Haswell-EP on 22 nm for the E5-1620 v3, Broadwell on 14 nm for the D-1528. Transistor counts are 2,600 million versus 3,200 million, and die sizes are 356 mm² versus 246 mm². L3 cache is 10 MB shared on the E5-1620 v3 versus 1.5 MB per core on the D-1528. Memory support is DDR4 quad-channel for the E5-1620 v3, versus DDR3 and DDR4 dual-channel for the D-1528. The E5-1620 v3 has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, the D-1528 has 24. The E5-1620 v3 is end-of-life with a September 2014 release, while the D-1528 is active with an October 2015 release and a launch MSRP of $320.
Where Each One Wins
The E5-1620 v3 wins in every benchmark category recorded: multi-core and single-core across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. It is the faster part for rendering tasks, and its 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth combined with quad-channel support makes it better suited for memory-intensive applications. Its 40 PCIe lanes also give it more room for expansion cards and storage controllers. The 3.60 GHz boost clock ensures that lightly threaded workloads run at high speed.
The D-1528 wins where benchmarks do not tell the whole story. Its 35 watt TDP makes it a far more efficient part for always-on server workloads, and its 14 nm node with 3,200 million transistors shows a more modern design. The six-core, 12-thread configuration provides more parallel processing headroom for workloads that can scale across cores, even if the lower clocks hold back its Cinebench scores. Its dual-channel DDR3 and DDR4 support offers flexibility in memory selection, and its active production status means it is still available for new designs. The BGA 1667 socket, while not upgradeable, allows for compact, integrated server boards that the E5-1620 v3's Socket 2011-3 platform cannot match.
In short: the E5-1620 v3 is the benchmark champion, the D-1528 is the efficiency and core-count champion. Choose the former for maximum performance per thread and memory bandwidth, choose the latter for lower power, more cores, and a smaller physical footprint.