Intel Xeon D-1537 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon D-1537 across every Cinebench iteration in the head-to-head comparison. The D-1537 wins all six benchmark tests, while the E5-1620 v4 fails to secure a single win. The margins are uniformly small, ranging from 1.6% to 2.3%, which suggests these two processors are remarkably close in raw rendering performance despite their architectural differences.

In multi-core workloads, the D-1537 leads by 1.6% in all three Cinebench versions. The R15 multicore score is 637 against 627 for the E5-1620 v4, a difference of 10 points. The R20 multicore test shows 2657 versus 2616, and the R23 multicore test records 6327 versus 6230. This consistency across different Cinebench generations indicates that the D-1537's advantage in multi-threaded tasks is stable and not an artifact of a particular benchmark version.

Single-core results follow a similar pattern, with the D-1537 ahead by 2.3% in Cinebench R15 single-core (90 versus 88) and by 1.6% in both R20 single-core (375 versus 369) and R23 single-core (893 versus 879). The largest relative gap occurs in the R15 single-core test, where the D-1537's 2.3% edge is the only margin above 1.6% in the entire dataset.

The average benchmark score reinforces this picture. The D-1537 records an average score of 1830, while the E5-1620 v4 sits at 1802, a difference of 28 points. Both processors occupy the 42nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they perform at essentially the same tier relative to the broader market. The nearest rivals for the D-1537 include the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 at 1830 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-8305G at 1831 (0% delta), while the E5-1620 v4's closest competitors include the Intel Core i3-9100 at 1806 (-0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810 (-0.4% delta).

What stands out is that the E5-1620 v4, despite having roughly half the core count (4 cores versus 8), comes within 1.6% of the D-1537 in multi-core tests. This is a direct consequence of its much higher clock speeds: the E5-1620 v4 runs at a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the D-1537 operates at 1.70 GHz base and 2.30 GHz boost. The D-1537's core count advantage is nearly neutralized by the E5-1620 v4's clock advantage, leaving only a narrow overall lead for the D-1537.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but marginal winner: the Intel Xeon D-1537 takes all six head-to-head benchmarks and holds a higher average benchmark score (1830 versus 1802). Any user prioritizing pure Cinebench scores should select the D-1537, as it leads in every recorded test. However, the practical significance of a 1.6% to 2.3% margin is minimal in real-world rendering tasks. The E5-1620 v4 is not a poor performer; it simply trails by a small, consistent amount.

For workloads that depend on multi-threaded rendering, the D-1537's 8 cores and 16 threads provide a structural advantage that the E5-1620 v4's 4 cores and 8 threads cannot fully overcome, even with the latter's higher clocks. The D-1537 also offers a 35 W TDP, which is dramatically lower than the E5-1620 v4's 140 W TDP, making it a far more power-efficient choice for sustained server or workstation operation.

Conversely, the E5-1620 v4 remains relevant for scenarios where the platform matters more than raw Cinebench scores. It uses Intel Socket 2011-3 with quad-channel DDR4 memory and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, whereas the D-1537 uses Intel BGA 1667 with dual-channel memory and no listed bandwidth figure. The E5-1620 v4 also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 24 on the D-1537, which matters for systems with many expansion cards or high-bandwidth peripherals. The E5-1620 v4 is classified as a desktop processor and is end-of-life, while the D-1537 is an active server/workstation part.

The verdict from the database is straightforward: choose the D-1537 for multi-threaded performance and efficiency, choose the E5-1620 v4 if the socket, memory channel count, or PCIe lane count are decisive factors for the rest of the system.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1537 wins with a score of 6327, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 scores 6230, a 1.6% difference.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the D-1537 leads by 2.3% (90 versus 88). All other tests show a 1.6% gap.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The D-1537 has an average benchmark score of 1830, while the E5-1620 v4 has 1802. Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon D-1537 and the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to the D-1537's boost clock of 2.30 GHz.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1537 is marked as Active, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is marked as End-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in every major specification category except for the process node and die size. Both are built on Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 246 mm², but the transistor counts differ slightly: the D-1537 has 3,200 million transistors, while the E5-1620 v4 has 3,400 million.

Core and thread counts are the most significant divergence. The D-1537 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the E5-1620 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds are also very different: the D-1537 runs at 1.70 GHz base and 2.30 GHz boost, while the E5-1620 v4 runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The TDP difference is stark: 35 W for the D-1537 versus 140 W for the E5-1620 v4.

The socket and platform differ completely. The D-1537 uses Intel BGA 1667 (soldered), while the E5-1620 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Memory support differs as well: the D-1537 supports DDR3 and DDR4 in dual-channel configuration, while the E5-1620 v4 supports only DDR4 in quad-channel configuration. The E5-1620 v4 lists a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the D-1537 has no listed bandwidth figure. PCIe lanes also differ: the D-1537 has 24 Gen 3 lanes, while the E5-1620 v4 has 40 Gen 3 lanes.

The cache structure differs in the L3 cache. The D-1537 has 1.5 MB of L3 per core, while the E5-1620 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively. The market segment differs: the D-1537 is classified as Server/Workstation, while the E5-1620 v4 is classified as Desktop. Production status also differs, with the D-1537 Active and the E5-1620 v4 End-of-life. The release dates are close: the D-1537 launched in October 2015, while the E5-1620 v4 launched in June 2016.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are based on the Broadwell architecture, but they belong to different sub-families. The D-1537 is part of the Xeon D line (Broadwell-DE), designed for dense, low-power server and edge workloads. The E5-1620 v4 is part of the Xeon E5 line (Broadwell-EP), designed for mainstream server or high-end desktop platforms.

The most consequential architectural difference is the core count versus clock speed trade-off. The D-1537 doubles the core count of the E5-1620 v4 (8 versus 4) but runs at less than half the base clock (1.70 GHz versus 3.50 GHz). This trade-off explains why the multi-core benchmark scores are so close: the D-1537's extra cores are offset by the E5-1620 v4's much higher per-core speed.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The D-1537 uses dual-channel memory with support for both DDR3 and DDR4, while the E5-1620 v4 uses quad-channel DDR4 with a listed bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The quad-channel configuration gives the E5-1620 v4 a theoretical memory bandwidth advantage, though the D-1537 does not list a bandwidth figure for comparison.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. The D-1537 provides 24 Gen 3 lanes, while the E5-1620 v4 provides 40 Gen 3 lanes. This makes the E5-1620 v4 more suitable for systems with multiple GPUs, NVMe drives, or other high-throughput expansion cards.

The cache hierarchy is another point of difference. The D-1537 allocates 1.5 MB of L3 per core, which totals 12 MB across 8 cores. The E5-1620 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3 across 4 cores, which is 2.5 MB per core. The E5-1620 v4's shared cache design may reduce latency for single-threaded workloads, while the D-1537's per-core allocation could benefit multi-threaded scaling.

The transistor counts differ by 200 million (3,200 million for the D-1537 versus 3,400 million for the E5-1620 v4), despite identical die sizes and process nodes. This suggests a slightly denser design for the E5-1620 v4, likely due to the larger shared L3 cache per core.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon D-1537 wins in every benchmark recorded, so the use-case split is based on other factors in the database. In multi-threaded rendering, the D-1537's 8 cores and 16 threads provide a structural advantage, and the benchmark scores confirm this with a 1.6% lead across all Cinebench multi-core tests. For power-constrained environments, the D-1537's 35 W TDP is a decisive advantage over the E5-1620 v4's 140 W TDP, making it the clear choice for dense server deployments, edge computing, or any scenario where thermal and power budgets are tight. Its Active production status also means it remains available for new designs.

The E5-1620 v4 wins in platform flexibility. Its Intel Socket 2011-3 form factor allows for a replaceable CPU, whereas the D-1537 is soldered via Intel BGA 1667. The quad-channel DDR4 memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth gives the E5-1620 v4 an advantage in memory-intensive workloads such as large database operations or high-bandwidth data processing. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, compared to 24 on the D-1537, make the E5-1620 v4 better suited for systems with many expansion cards, multiple GPUs, or high-speed networking. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.50 GHz and 3.80 GHz) benefit lightly threaded workloads that are sensitive to per-core speed, even though the single-core benchmark scores show the D-1537 ahead by a small margin.

In summary, the D-1537 is the winner for multi-threaded compute, efficiency, and long-term availability. The E5-1620 v4 is the winner for upgradeability, memory bandwidth, PCIe expansion, and high-clock-sensitive tasks. The benchmark data shows the D-1537 as the overall performance leader, but the E5-1620 v4 remains a viable choice for specific platform-driven requirements.