Intel Xeon D-1531 vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 and the Intel Xeon D-1531 are both six-core, twelve-thread server processors, yet they are built for different corners of the data center. The E5-2620 v3 is a Haswell-EP part for traditional socketed servers, while the D-1531 is a Broadwell-DE system-on-chip for dense, low-power appliances. The benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, performance edge for the older E5-2620 v3 across every recorded test, but the D-1531 counters with a dramatically lower thermal envelope and a more modern process node. This comparison is not about a knockout victory, but about understanding which platform’s trade-offs matter more for a specific workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1907, while the Intel Xeon D-1531 scores 1885. The E5-2620 v3 leads by a margin of 22 points.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The E5-2620 v3 scores 6595 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the D-1531 scores 6517. This represents a 1.2% advantage for the E5-2620 v3.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has a TDP of 85 watts, while the Intel Xeon D-1531 has a TDP of 35 watts. The D-1531 uses less than half the power budget.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 and the Intel Xeon D-1531 have ECC memory support.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The E5-2620 v3 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The D-1531 has 1.5 MB of L3 cache per core, which totals 9 MB across its six cores.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for these CPUs?

A: The launch MSRP for the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 is $417, and for the Intel Xeon D-1531 it is $348.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 wins all six recorded tests. The victories are small, with delta percentages ranging from 1.1% to 1.3%, but they are consistent across single-core and multi-core workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2620 v3 posts 664 against 656 for the D-1531, a 1.2% win. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the E5-2620 v3 scores 391 versus 386, a 1.3% margin, which is the largest advantage recorded in any test. This pattern suggests that the E5-2620 v3’s higher base and boost clocks, 2.40 GHz and 3.20 GHz versus 2.20 GHz and 2.70 GHz for the D-1531, translate directly into a slight but repeatable performance lead.

However, the D-1531 wins where the benchmark suite does not measure: thermal efficiency. Its 35 watt TDP is a defining feature. The E5-2620 v3, with an 85 watt TDP, requires a more substantial cooling solution and power delivery system. For deployments where space is constrained, such as network appliances or edge compute nodes, the D-1531’s lower power draw allows for passive cooling and smaller chassis designs. The data does not capture this directly, but the TDP figures in the database imply that the D-1531 is the superior choice for power-sensitive installations. The E5-2620 v3, conversely, is the winner for any scenario where raw processing speed, even by a small margin, is the priority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 is based on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, and is built on a 22 nm process node. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, which is a socketed design intended for upgradeable server motherboards. The D-1531 is based on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-DE variant, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process node. It uses the Intel BGA 1667 socket, which is a ball-grid array, meaning the chip is soldered directly to the board. This makes the D-1531 a system-on-chip design, integrating features that would normally be on the motherboard.

The transistor counts reflect the manufacturing differences. The E5-2620 v3 contains 2,600 million transistors on a die size of 356 mm². The D-1531 contains 3,200 million transistors on a smaller die size of 246 mm². This is a direct result of the move from 22 nm to 14 nm lithography, allowing for more transistors in a smaller physical area. The cache hierarchies also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache, however, is organized differently: the E5-2620 v3 has a shared 15 MB pool, while the D-1531 has 1.5 MB per core, which is a distributed configuration. This architectural shift from a shared to a per-core L3 design can impact how frequently data must be fetched from main memory.

Specification Differences

The specification tables show several key differences between the two processors. The most obvious is the TDP: 85 watts for the E5-2620 v3 versus 35 watts for the D-1531. This is a major differentiator for system design. The socket types are incompatible, with the E5-2620 v3 using Intel Socket 2011-3 and the D-1531 using Intel BGA 1667. The memory support also diverges. The E5-2620 v3 supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The D-1531 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but over a dual-channel bus, and the database does not list a memory bandwidth figure for it. The PCIe lane count differs as well: the E5-2620 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the D-1531 provides 24 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

Clock speeds are another point of difference. The E5-2620 v3 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The D-1531 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz. The E5-2620 v3 is faster in both metrics. The release dates are also distinct: the E5-2620 v3 was released in September 2014, while the D-1531 was released in October 2015. The production status differs, with the E5-2620 v3 marked as end-of-life and the D-1531 marked as active. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has integrated graphics. The part numbers are SR207 for the E5-2620 v3 and SR2DG for the D-1531.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmarks show a near-uniform performance profile. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-2620 v3 scores 664 against the D-1531’s 656, a 1.2% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the scores are 93 and 92, respectively, a 1.1% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows 2769 for the E5-2620 v3 and 2737 for the D-1531, again a 1.2% lead. The single-core R20 test shows 391 versus 386, which is a 1.3% lead, the largest margin in the entire head-to-head set. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core scores are 6595 and 6517, a 1.2% lead, and the single-core scores are 931 and 920, a 1.2% lead.

The consistency of these results is notable. The E5-2620 v3 wins every test by roughly the same percentage, regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or heavily parallel. This indicates that the performance advantage is not tied to a specific optimization but is a general characteristic of the processor’s higher clock speeds. The D-1531, despite its newer architecture and more advanced 14 nm process, cannot overcome the clock speed deficit. The data shows that the E5-2620 v3’s 3.20 GHz boost clock, compared to the D-1531’s 2.70 GHz, is the deciding factor in these compute-bound tests. The average benchmark scores confirm this trend, with the E5-2620 v3 at 1907 and the D-1531 at 1885. The nearest rivals for the E5-2620 v3 include the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 with an average score of 1908, showing it sits in a tight competitive cluster. The D-1531’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-4940MX, scores 1886, placing it just behind the E5-2620 v3 in overall performance.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, performance hierarchy. The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. Its wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, are consistent and measurable, with deltas between 1.1% and 1.3%. For users whose primary concern is compute throughput, the E5-2620 v3 is the correct choice. It also offers a wider memory bus with quad-channel DDR4 support and a higher memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, which can benefit memory-intensive workloads. Its 40 PCIe lanes provide more expansion headroom for add-in cards. The fact that it is end-of-life may be a concern for new designs, but its performance credentials are intact.

The Intel Xeon D-1531, on the other hand, is not a performance winner in this comparison, but it occupies a distinct niche. Its 35 watt TDP is the standout specification. For systems where heat dissipation and power consumption are critical, such as fanless network appliances or compact edge servers, the D-1531 is the only viable option between the two. Its active production status also means it is available for new deployments, unlike the end-of-life E5-2620 v3. The D-1531’s memory support for both DDR3 and DDR4 offers flexibility for existing system inventories. Its dual-channel memory bus and lower PCIe lane count are limitations, but they are acceptable trade-offs for a processor designed for efficiency over raw speed.

The verdict is not a single recommendation but a fork in the road. If the workload demands maximum compute performance, the E5-2620 v3 wins on all six benchmark tests. If the workload demands minimal power draw and the ability to operate in thermally constrained environments, the D-1531 wins on TDP. The benchmark database shows that the performance gap is small, under 2% in all cases, which means the D-1531 does not sacrifice much speed for its efficiency. Conversely, the E5-2620 v3 does not sacrifice much efficiency for its speed, at least in terms of benchmark scores. The final choice depends on which specification matters more, the 3.20 GHz boost clock of the E5-2620 v3 or the 35 watt TDP of the D-1531. The data supports both conclusions.