Intel Xeon D-1712TR vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, narrow advantage for the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 across every recorded Cinebench test. The head-to-head results record six wins for the E3-1240 v5 and zero for the Xeon D-1712TR, though the margins are small enough that they may matter more for precision workloads than for general use.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E3-1240 v5 scores 707 against 698 for the D-1712TR, a difference of 1.3 percent. Single-core R15 shows a 99 to 98 split, a 1 percent edge for the older chip. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the E3-1240 v5 posts 2948 versus 2911, again a 1.3 percent gap, while single-core R20 shows 416 versus 410, a 1.5 percent margin, the largest proportional difference in the entire dataset. Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the pattern: 7020 for the E3-1240 v5 and 6931 for the D-1712TR, a 1.3 percent advantage, with single-core R23 at 991 versus 978, a 1.3 percent edge.

These results indicate that the E3-1240 v5, despite launching in 2015, holds a small but consistent lead in every workload tested. The largest recorded delta, 1.5 percent in R20 single-core, still falls well below what most users would perceive in everyday operation. The average benchmark score for the E3-1240 v5 is 2030, while the D-1712TR averages 2004, a difference of 26 points or roughly 1.3 percent. Both processors sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier overall.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each processor provides additional context. The E3-1240 v5 is bracketed by the Intel Core i7-5775R with an average score of 2031 and a delta of -0.1 percent, the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 at 2029 with a delta of 0.1 percent, the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 also at 2029 with a delta of 0.1 percent, and the Intel Core i5-1130G7 at 2026 with a delta of 0.2 percent. The D-1712TR sits near the Intel Core i5-8400H at 2003 with a delta of 0 percent, the Intel Core i5-8300H at 2005 with a delta of -0.1 percent, the AMD Ryzen 7 2800H at 2002 with a delta of 0.1 percent, and the Intel Core i5-8400T at 2001 with a delta of 0.1 percent. The D-1712TR effectively matches its closest rivals, while the E3-1240 v5 trades places with its own set of comparable parts.

For buyers choosing between these two specific Xeons, the data says the E3-1240 v5 wins every test, but the practical difference is minimal. A 1.3 percent multicore margin in R23 translates to roughly 89 points, a gap that could be closed by background processes on either system. The D-1712TR is not a faster chip, but it is not a dramatically slower one either. The consistency of the E3-1240 v5's lead across all six tests suggests it has a slightly better tuned implementation for the Cinebench workload, likely related to its higher clock speeds, but the architecture differences discussed below explain why the newer chip keeps pace.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and are built for different platforms. The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 uses the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-DT codename, and is fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process node. It contains 1,750 million transistors on a 122 mm² die. The Intel Xeon D-1712TR uses the Ice Lake architecture with the Ice Lake-D codename, built on a 10 nm process node. The database does not record transistor count or die size for the D-1712TR, so a direct comparison on those metrics is not possible.

Both chips have 4 cores and 8 threads, so thread-level parallelism is identical. The cache hierarchies, however, differ meaningfully. The E3-1240 v5 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The D-1712TR has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The newer chip offers more cache at every level, which helps compensate for its lower clock speeds in memory-sensitive workloads.

Clock speeds show a clear trade-off. The E3-1240 v5 runs at a 3.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.90 GHz. The D-1712TR runs at a 2000.00 MHz base clock and boosts to 3.10 GHz. The E3-1240 v5's base clock is substantially higher, and its boost clock is 0.80 GHz higher as well. Despite this, the D-1712TR's thermal design power is only 40 watts versus 80 watts for the E3-1240 v5. That is a significant efficiency advantage for the newer chip, which delivers within 1.3 percent of the older part's multicore performance while consuming half the TDP budget.

Memory support also diverges. The E3-1240 v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory over a dual-channel interface with a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The D-1712TR supports only DDR4, but over a triple-channel interface with a recorded bandwidth of 57.6 GB/s. That is a 69 percent higher theoretical bandwidth for the newer chip, which can matter in server workloads that stream large datasets. Both processors support ECC memory, which is expected for the server/workstation segment.

PCI Express connectivity differs by generation and lane count. The E3-1240 v5 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The D-1712TR provides PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The newer standard doubles the per-lane bandwidth, so the D-1712TR has a faster interface for GPUs and NVMe storage even though the lane count is the same.

The socket and physical platform are completely different. The E3-1240 v5 fits Intel Socket 1151, while the D-1712TR uses Intel BGA 2227, meaning the latter is soldered to the board and not upgradeable. The production status also differs: the E3-1240 v5 is end-of-life, while the D-1712TR is active. The release dates reflect this, with the E3-1240 v5 launching in 2015 and the D-1712TR in 2022. The part numbers are SR2LD for the E3-1240 v5 and SRM1G for the D-1712TR. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either platform.

The foundry for both is Intel, and both target the server/workstation market. Neither has integrated graphics. The E3-1240 v5 carries a launch MSRP of $282, while the D-1712TR carries a launch MSRP of $263.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 707 versus 698 in R15, 2948 versus 2911 in R20, and 7020 versus 6931 in R23, each a 1.3 percent margin.

Q: Does the D-1712TR win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data records 6 wins for the E3-1240 v5 and 0 wins for the D-1712TR across all six Cinebench tests.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The E3-1240 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2030, while the D-1712TR averages 2004. Both sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The D-1712TR has a recorded memory bandwidth of 57.6 GB/s over a triple-channel DDR4 interface. The E3-1240 v5 has 34.1 GB/s over dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4.

Q: Are both processors ECC-capable?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory, consistent with their server/workstation market segment.

Q: Which processor is more power efficient?

A: The D-1712TR has a TDP of 40 watts versus 80 watts for the E3-1240 v5, while delivering within 1.3 percent of the older chip's multi-core performance.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Base clock: 3.50 GHz for the E3-1240 v5 versus 2000.00 MHz for the D-1712TR.
• Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 3.10 GHz.
• TDP: 80 watts versus 40 watts.
• Socket: Intel Socket 1151 versus Intel BGA 2227.
• Architecture: Skylake versus Ice Lake.
• Codename: Skylake-DT versus Ice Lake-D.
• Generation: Xeon E3 (Skylake-DT) versus Xeon D (Ice Lake-D).
• Process node: 14 nm versus 10 nm.
• Transistors: 1,750 million for the E3-1240 v5, not recorded for the D-1712TR.
• Die size: 122 mm² for the E3-1240 v5, not recorded for the D-1712TR.
• L1 cache per core: 64 KB versus 80 KB.
• L2 cache per core: 256 KB versus 1.25 MB.
• L3 cache shared: 4 MB versus 10 MB, shared for the D-1712TR.
• Memory support: DDR3, DDR4 versus DDR4 only.
• Memory bus: Dual-channel versus triple-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: 57.6 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s for the E3-1240 v5, 57.6 GB/s for the D-1712TR.
• PCIe generation: Gen 3 versus Gen 4.
• Production status: End-of-life versus active.
• Release date: 2015 versus 2022.
• Part number: SR2LD versus SRM1G.
• Launch MSRP: $282 for the E3-1240 v5, $263 for the D-1712TR.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. It leads by 1.3 percent in R15 multicore, 1 percent in R15 single-core, 1.3 percent in R20 multicore, 1.5 percent in R20 single-core, and 1.3 percent in both R23 tests. Its average benchmark score is 2030 against 2004 for the D-1712TR. For anyone selecting a chip purely on Cinebench performance, the E3-1240 v5 is the choice.

The Intel Xeon D-1712TR, however, is the more modern and efficient part. It halves the TDP from 80 watts to 40 watts, provides a 69 percent higher memory bandwidth at 57.6 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s, uses newer PCIe Gen 4 connectivity, and offers larger caches at every level. It also remains in active production, while the E3-1240 v5 is end-of-life. The 10 nm process node gives it a manufacturing advantage, and its triple-channel memory controller is better suited to data-heavy server tasks.

For buyers prioritizing raw single-thread or multi-thread throughput in a socketed, upgradeable platform, the E3-1240 v5 delivers the higher scores. For buyers prioritizing power efficiency, newer PCIe generation, higher memory bandwidth, and an active production lifecycle, the D-1712TR is the better fit despite its slightly lower benchmark output. The performance gap is small enough that platform and system-level considerations should dominate the decision. Both processors sit at the 45th percentile, meaning neither stands out dramatically against the broader CPU landscape, but within this head-to-head, the data gives the E3-1240 v5 the performance win and the D-1712TR the efficiency and platform win.