Intel Xeon D-1715TER vs Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon D-1715TER and the Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 land in the same performance tier, but they achieve it through radically different designs. The D-1715TER wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, yet the margin is remarkably slim given that the E5-4648 v3 packs three times the cores. The data shows a near-total performance tie, with the modern 4-core part edging out the older 12-core processor by less than 1% in every test. For buyers, this means the choice hinges entirely on platform features, power efficiency, and lifecycle status, not raw compute throughput.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are strikingly consistent: the Intel Xeon D-1715TER wins all six Cinebench tests, but never by a meaningful margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the D-1715TER scores 779 against the E5-4648 v3’s 776, a delta of just 0.4%. Single-core performance in R15 is a dead heat at 109 points for both processors, with the D-1715TER awarded the win only by virtue of rounding. Moving to Cinebench R20, the D-1715TER posts 3249 multi-core and 458 single-core, while the E5-4648 v3 achieves 3234 and 456 respectively, yielding deltas of 0.5% and 0.4%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: the D-1715TER scores 7738 multi-core and 1092 single-core, against 7701 and 1087 for the E5-4648 v3, both deltas at 0.5%.

These numbers tell a clear story: the E5-4648 v3’s 12 cores and 24 threads are completely neutralized by the D-1715TER’s much higher clock speeds and newer architecture. The D-1715TER runs at a 2.40 GHz base clock with a 3.50 GHz boost, while the E5-4648 v3 is limited to a 1700.00 MHz base (reported as 1700.00 in the data) and a 2.20 GHz boost. That difference of over 1.3 GHz at boost explains how a quad-core part matches and slightly exceeds a twelve-core part in multi-threaded workloads. The average benchmark score reinforces the tie: the D-1715TER averages 2238 across all benchmarks, placing it 0.5% ahead of the E5-4648 v3’s 2227. Both processors sit at the 47th percentile among all CPUs, confirming they occupy the same performance class despite their divergent specifications.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two Xeons is generational. The D-1715TER is built on Ice Lake-D, a 10 nm process, while the E5-4648 v3 uses Haswell-EP on a 22 nm node. That process advantage translates directly into efficiency and clock headroom, which is why the D-1715TER can match a much larger chip. The E5-4648 v3 does have a transistor count of 2,600 million and a die size of 356 mm², figures that reflect the older, larger manufacturing process. The D-1715TER’s cache layout is also fundamentally different: it offers 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 10 MB of shared L3. The E5-4648 v3 counters with 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 30 MB of shared L3. The D-1715TER’s per-core L2 is nearly five times larger, which helps compensate for its smaller L3 pool.

Memory architecture diverges sharply as well. The D-1715TER uses triple-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 64.0 GB/s, while the E5-4648 v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 but achieves only 59.7 GB/s. Despite having one fewer channel, the newer part delivers more bandwidth thanks to its faster memory controller. Both support ECC memory, but the PCIe connectivity differs: the D-1715TER provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only), whereas the E5-4648 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The newer part’s PCIe Gen 4 doubles the per-lane bandwidth, though the E5-4648 v3 offers more total lanes for expansion-heavy server builds. Socket compatibility is another complete divergence: the D-1715TER uses Intel BGA 2227, a soldered embedded form factor, while the E5-4648 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a traditional LGA socket.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon D-1715TER wins all three multi-core benchmarks, but by less than 1%. It scores 779, 3249, and 7738 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 respectively, versus 776, 3234, and 7701 for the E5-4648 v3.

Q: How does the E5-4648 v3’s 12-core design compare to the D-1715TER’s 4 cores?

A: Despite having three times the cores and 24 threads versus 8, the E5-4648 v3 loses every benchmark. Its lower clock speeds (1700.00 MHz base, 2.20 GHz boost) cannot overcome the D-1715TER’s 2.40 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, combined with the newer Ice Lake architecture.

Q: Which chip has better single-core performance?

A: The D-1715TER wins all single-core tests, but the margins are negligible. It scores 109, 458, and 1092 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core, while the E5-4648 v3 scores 109, 456, and 1087 respectively.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No. The D-1715TER is listed as Active production status with a release date of 2022-02-23, while the E5-4648 v3 is End-of-life, having been released on 2015-05-31.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The D-1715TER provides 64.0 GB/s over triple-channel DDR4, while the E5-4648 v3 provides 59.7 GB/s over quad-channel DDR4. The newer chip delivers higher bandwidth despite having one fewer channel.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the D-1715TER and the E5-4648 v3 support ECC memory, making them suitable for server and workstation environments where data integrity is critical.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. Core count: the D-1715TER has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the E5-4648 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. Clock speeds: the D-1715TER runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, versus 1700.00 MHz base and 2.20 GHz boost for the E5-4648 v3. Thermal design power: the D-1715TER draws 50 W, while the E5-4648 v3 draws 105 W. Socket: the D-1715TER uses Intel BGA 2227, the E5-4648 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Architecture and process: the D-1715TER is Ice Lake on 10 nm, the E5-4648 v3 is Haswell-EP on 22 nm. The E5-4648 v3 has published transistor and die measurements (2,600 million transistors, 356 mm²), while the D-1715TER has none listed.

Cache configurations diverge completely: the D-1715TER has 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core with 10 MB shared L3, while the E5-4648 v3 has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core with 30 MB shared L3. Memory channels and bandwidth: the D-1715TER uses triple-channel with 64.0 GB/s, the E5-4648 v3 uses quad-channel with 59.7 GB/s. PCIe support: the D-1715TER offers Gen 4 with 16 lanes, the E5-4648 v3 offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes. Production status: the D-1715TER is Active, the E5-4648 v3 is End-of-life. The E5-4648 v3 has a launch MSRP of $2405, while the D-1715TER has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon D-1715TER wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so its advantages are clear-cut. It dominates in power efficiency, drawing 50 W versus 105 W for the E5-4648 v3, which makes it the obvious choice for dense, power-constrained deployments. Its 10 nm Ice Lake architecture and PCIe Gen 4 support make it the better fit for modern workloads that benefit from newer instructions and faster I/O. The higher boost clock of 3.50 GHz also gives it a decisive edge in lightly threaded tasks, even if the benchmark margins are small. The D-1715TER’s Active production status means it remains available for new designs.

The Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 wins on raw core count and platform extensibility. With 12 cores and 24 threads, it offers more parallel headroom for workloads that scale beyond what the D-1715TER’s 4 cores can handle, even if Cinebench does not show it. Its 30 MB of shared L3 cache is three times larger, which can benefit certain data-heavy workloads. The quad-channel memory bus, despite lower bandwidth, provides more memory channels for higher capacity configurations. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes offer significantly more expansion capability than the D-1715TER’s 16 Gen 4 lanes. The E5-4648 v3 also uses a standard LGA 2011-3 socket, which is replaceable, unlike the D-1715TER’s soldered BGA 2227 package.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Xeon D-1715TER is the better processor for almost any use case. It wins every benchmark, uses less than half the power, runs on a newer process node, and remains in Active production. The E5-4648 v3’s only advantages are its higher core count, larger L3 cache, and more PCIe lanes, but none of these translate into a benchmark win in the Cinebench suite. The D-1715TER’s 0.5% lead in Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core tests, achieved with one-third the cores, confirms the efficiency of the 10 nm Ice Lake architecture.

The E5-4648 v3 still has a role for legacy server platforms that require Socket 2011-3 compatibility or need more than 16 PCIe lanes for expansion cards. Its 12 cores may also be preferable for highly parallel, non-cache-sensitive workloads that do not show up in these Cinebench results. However, the D-1715TER’s combination of superior benchmark scores, lower TDP, and modern feature set makes it the default recommendation for new builds. The E5-4648 v3’s End-of-life status further cements the D-1715TER as the safer long-term investment, despite the E5-4648 v3’s $2405 launch MSRP being the only listed price. For anyone choosing between these two, the data overwhelmingly favors the Intel Xeon D-1715TER.