Intel Xeon D-1712TR vs Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 and Intel Xeon D-1712TR are both 4-core, 8-thread server processors, but they come from different design generations. The E3-1260L v5 is a Skylake-DT part on the 14 nm node, while the D-1712TR is an Ice Lake-D part on 10 nm. In the database's Cinebench suite, the E3-1260L v5 wins all six recorded tests, though by margins of only 1% to 1.3%. The D-1712TR counters with a lower TDP, higher memory bandwidth, and PCIe Gen4 support.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 outperforms the Intel Xeon D-1712TR in every Cinebench test recorded. The largest gap is 1.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, and the smallest is 1% in R15 single-core. The other four tests show a 1.2% lead for the E3-1260L v5. This is a consistent, if narrow, victory across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

However, the D-1712TR is not without its own advantages. It has a lower TDP of 40 W compared to 45 W, a more recent 10 nm process, a larger L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB), and a triple-channel memory interface with 57.6 GB/s of bandwidth versus the E3-1260L v5's dual-channel 34.1 GB/s. It also supports PCIe Gen4, while the older part is limited to Gen3. These features are not reflected in the Cinebench scores, which are compute-bound and clock-sensitive.

For users who prioritize the exact workloads in this database, the E3-1260L v5 is the faster part. For those who need the platform capabilities of the D-1712TR, the performance deficit is small enough to be acceptable. The E3-1260L v5 had a launch MSRP of $294, while the D-1712TR had a launch MSRP of $263. Both sit at the 45th percentile of all CPUs in the database, indicating similar overall standing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their underlying design. The E3-1260L v5 uses the Skylake-DT architecture on Intel's 14 nm process, with a die size of 122 mm² and 1,750 million transistors. The D-1712TR uses Ice Lake-D on 10 nm, though the database does not list its transistor count or die size. The newer process allows the D-1712TR to achieve a lower TDP of 40 W despite a more complex memory controller and larger caches.

Cache hierarchies differ. The E3-1260L v5 has 64 KB of L1 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 D-1712TR's L2 is larger per core, and its L3 is larger overall.

Memory support is another major split. The E3-1260L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, yielding 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The D-1712TR supports only DDR4 but uses a triple-channel interface, reaching 57.6 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The PCIe interface also differs: the E3-1260L v5 provides Gen3 with 16 lanes, while the D-1712TR provides Gen4 with 16 lanes.

Clock speeds favor the older part. The E3-1260L v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost of 3.90 GHz. The D-1712TR has a base of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 3.10 GHz. This higher base and boost clock advantage explains the E3-1260L v5's lead in the clock-sensitive Cinebench tests.

Socket and platform differ as well. The E3-1260L v5 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the D-1712TR uses BGA 2227. The E3-1260L v5 is end-of-life, with a release date of 2015-10-18. The D-1712TR is active, released on 2022-02-23. Both are server/workstation parts with ECC support and locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

In the recorded benchmark suite, the E3-1260L v5 wins every test. The six Cinebench results show a consistent edge of 1% to 1.3% across both single-core and multi-core workloads. This is a clean sweep, with winsA equal to 6 and winsB equal to 0.

The D-1712TR, however, wins on several architectural metrics that are not directly benchmarked here. Its memory bandwidth of 57.6 GB/s is higher than the E3-1260L v5's 34.1 GB/s. Its PCIe Gen4 interface doubles the per-lane bandwidth of Gen3. Its larger L2 and L3 caches could benefit workloads with high cache reuse. Its lower TDP of 40 W makes it more power-efficient on paper. And its 10 nm process is newer than the 14 nm node of the E3-1260L v5.

The database does not include tests for memory bandwidth, PCIe throughput, or power consumption. Therefore, the only measurable performance data shows the E3-1260L v5 ahead. For applications that are heavily memory-bound or require PCIe Gen4 devices, the D-1712TR's platform features may provide a real-world advantage, but that is not captured in the Cinebench scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 leads in all single-core Cinebench tests. It scores 99 vs 98 in R15, 415 vs 410 in R20, and 990 vs 978 in R23, with deltas of 1% to 1.2%.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1712TR has 10 MB of shared L3, while the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has 8 MB. The D-1712TR also has larger L1 and L2 caches per core.

Q: Which processor supports PCIe Gen4?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1712TR supports PCIe Gen4 with 16 lanes. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 is limited to PCIe Gen3 with 16 lanes.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1712TR has a triple-channel DDR4 interface with 57.6 GB/s, compared to the E3-1260L v5's dual-channel 34.1 GB/s.

Q: Which processor is newer?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1712TR was released on 2022-02-23 and is active. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 was released on 2015-10-18 and is end-of-life.

Q: Which processor has lower TDP?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1712TR has a TDP of 40 W, while the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has a TDP of 45 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1260L v5 scores 707 against the D-1712TR's 698, a 1.3% lead. In R15 single-core, the scores are 99 and 98, a 1% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows 2946 vs 2911, a 1.2% advantage for the E3-1260L v5. The R20 single-core test shows 415 vs 410, also 1.2%. In Cinebench R23, the multi-core result is 7015 vs 6931, a 1.2% lead, and the single-core result is 990 vs 978, again 1.2%.

These margins are small but consistent. The E3-1260L v5's higher clock speeds, particularly the 3.90 GHz boost versus 3.10 GHz, likely drive the advantage. The D-1712TR's larger caches and newer architecture do not overcome the clock deficit in these compute-bound tests.

The average benchmark scores reflect the same pattern. The E3-1260L v5 has an average score of 2029, which places it level with the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 (2029, 0% delta) and within 0.1% of the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 (2030, -0.1%). The D-1712TR's average of 2004 is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-8400H (2003, 0% delta) and the Intel Core i5-8300H (2005, -0.1%). Both processors sit at the 45th percentile of all CPUs in the database, indicating that they are comparable in overall performance to a wide range of other parts.

In summary, the E3-1260L v5 wins every recorded benchmark, but the D-1712TR offers a more modern platform with higher memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen4, and lower power consumption. The choice depends on whether the measured Cinebench performance or the unmeasured platform features matter more for the intended workload.