Intel Xeon D-1537 vs Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 across every Cinebench workload in the database, though the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon E3-1545M v5 scores 654 against 637 for the Xeon D-1537, a 2.6% advantage. The single-core R15 result tells the same story: 92 versus 90, a 2.2% lead for the E3-1545M v5.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds with identical relative margins. The E3-1545M v5 posts 2728 in multi-core, while the D-1537 records 2657, again a 2.6% gap. Single-core R20 shows 385 versus 375, a 2.6% difference. The latest Cinebench R23 results mirror this consistency: the E3-1545M v5 reaches 6497 in multi-core, the D-1537 manages 6327, and single-core scores are 917 and 893 respectively, each a 2.6% margin.

What stands out is the uniformity of the deltas. Across all six benchmark entries, the E3-1545M v5 never extends its lead beyond 2.6% nor falls below 2.2%. This suggests a stable performance advantage that scales equally across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, despite the D-1537 having double the core count. The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this: the E3-1545M v5 sits at 1879, while the D-1537 trails at 1830. The percentile rankings also favor the E3-1545M v5, which lands at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs versus the 42nd percentile for the D-1537.

For context, the D-1537's nearest rivals in the database include the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 at an identical 1830 average score, the Intel Core i5-8305G at 1831, and the AMD Ryzen 5 4600U at 1832 (a 0.1% deficit). The E3-1545M v5, meanwhile, sits near the Intel Processor U300 at 1881 and the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 at 1882. These rival positions indicate that both chips occupy a similar performance tier, with the E3-1545M v5 holding a modest but consistent edge within that tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and are built for different physical environments. The Intel Xeon D-1537 uses the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-DE generation, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process with 3,200 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. It is configured with 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 1.70 GHz and a boost clock of 2.30 GHz. The cache layout is per-core: 64 KB of L1, 256 KB of L2, and 1.5 MB of L3 per core. It uses the Intel BGA 1667 socket and carries a TDP of 35 W.

The Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5, by contrast, is built on the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-H, also on a 14 nm process but with fewer transistors at 2,300 million and a smaller die at 171 mm². It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a much higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache differs significantly: L1 and L2 remain per-core at 64 KB and 256 KB, but L3 is 8 MB shared across all cores, rather than allocated per core. It uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket and has a higher TDP of 45 W.

Both chips support DDR3 and DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, and both support ECC memory. The E3-1545M v5, however, lists an explicit memory bandwidth figure of 34.1 GB/s, while the D-1537's memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. PCIe lane counts also differ: the D-1537 provides Gen 3 with 24 lanes from the CPU, while the E3-1545M v5 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. A notable feature difference is integrated graphics: the E3-1545M v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580, whereas the D-1537 has no integrated graphics listed.

Production status separates the two as well. The D-1537 remains listed as Active, with a release date of 2015-10-31 and a launch MSRP of $470. The E3-1545M v5 is marked End-of-life, released later on 2016-01-23 with a launch MSRP of $679. Both processors have locked multipliers and are intended for server or workstation segments, though the E3-1545M v5's inclusion of integrated graphics and mobile-oriented BGA 1440 socket suggests a different platform focus.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1537 has 8 cores and 16 threads, double the 4 cores and 8 threads of the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5.

Q: Despite having fewer cores, does the E3-1545M v5 win in multi-core benchmarks?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the E3-1545M v5 scores 6497 versus 6327 for the D-1537, a 2.6% advantage. The same trend appears in R15 (654 vs 637) and R20 (2728 vs 2657).

Q: What is the difference in clock speeds between the two?

A: The E3-1545M v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the D-1537 operates at 1.70 GHz base and 2.30 GHz boost.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the D-1537 and the E3-1545M v5 support ECC memory, and both support DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 includes integrated graphics, specifically Iris Pro Graphics P580. The D-1537 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What are the production statuses of these chips?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1537 is listed as Active, while the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 is marked End-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across several recorded specification fields. Core and thread counts differ: the D-1537 has 8 cores and 16 threads, the E3-1545M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 1.70 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 2.30 GHz versus 3.80 GHz. TDP differs, with the D-1537 at 35 W and the E3-1545M v5 at 45 W. Sockets are distinct: Intel BGA 1667 for the D-1537, Intel BGA 1440 for the E3-1545M v5.

Architecture and generation differ: Broadwell (Broadwell-DE) versus Skylake (Skylake-H). Transistor counts are 3,200 million versus 2,300 million, and die sizes are 246 mm² versus 171 mm². Cache topology differs: the D-1537 uses 1.5 MB of L3 per core, while the E3-1545M v5 uses 8 MB of shared L3. Memory bandwidth is recorded only for the E3-1545M v5 at 34.1 GB/s; no figure is listed for the D-1537. PCIe lane counts differ: 24 lanes for the D-1537, 16 lanes for the E3-1545M v5. Integrated graphics are present only on the E3-1545M v5 (Iris Pro Graphics P580). Production status, release date, and launch MSRP all differ: the D-1537 is Active with a 2015-10-31 release and $470 MSRP, while the E3-1545M v5 is End-of-life with a 2016-01-23 release and $679 MSRP. Part numbers also differ: SR2GF for the D-1537, SR2QU for the E3-1545M v5.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 wins on every recorded benchmark in the database, but the scope of that victory is narrow. The largest margins are a 2.6% lead in all multi-core and most single-core tests, with R15 single-core showing the smallest gap at 2.2%. This makes the E3-1545M v5 the better choice for workloads where every percentage point in Cinebench scores matters, particularly given its higher base and boost clocks. The presence of Iris Pro Graphics P580 also gives it an advantage in scenarios requiring integrated display output or GPU-accelerated compute, which the D-1537 cannot offer.

The Intel Xeon D-1537, despite losing every head-to-head benchmark, holds structural advantages that suit different use cases. Its 8 cores and 16 threads provide double the parallel resources of the E3-1545M v5, which could benefit workloads that scale with thread count beyond what Cinebench captures. Its lower TDP of 35 W versus 45 W makes it more power-efficient per core, and its 24 PCIe lanes versus 16 provide greater I/O expansion capability for server-oriented tasks. The D-1537's Active production status also means it remains available for new deployments, while the E3-1545M v5 is End-of-life.

For a server or workstation platform prioritizing raw single-threaded responsiveness and integrated graphics, the E3-1545M v5 is the clear winner based on the recorded data. For a dense, low-power server with higher core counts and more PCIe lanes, the D-1537 offers a different trade-off, even if its benchmark scores trail slightly. The database shows the E3-1545M v5 as the faster processor in every measured test, but the D-1537's architectural profile suggests it targets a distinct operational niche where core count and I/O matter more than peak Cinebench performance.