Intel Xeon E-2124 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison
Intel Xeon E-2124
Xeon E3-1240L v5
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Xeon E-2124 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5
Where Each One Wins
The recorded data is unusually one-sided. Across all six Cinebench tests in the database, the Intel Xeon E-2124 takes the win every time. The E3-1240L v5 does not secure a single victory in any workload, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. That does not mean the older chip is without purpose, but its strengths are not found in raw Cinebench scores.
The E3-1240L v5 wins on efficiency. Its 25 W TDP is dramatically lower than the E-2124's 71 W, and for a server or workstation environment where power density and cooling are constraints, that difference matters more than a few hundred points in a render test. The data shows the E3-1240L v5 slotting into a 39th percentile position among all CPUs, while the E-2124 sits at the 40th percentile. In practical terms, both are near the middle of the pack, but the E3-1240L v5 achieves that standing with far less thermal headroom required.
The E-2124 wins on every performance metric that the benchmark suite measures. Its smallest margin is a 2.9% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and R20 single-core, and its largest is a 3.7% lead in Cinebench R15 single-core. For workloads that are latency-sensitive or lightly threaded, the E-2124's higher base and boost clocks translate directly into faster completion times. For multi-threaded tasks, the E-2124 still edges ahead despite having only 4 threads versus 8, which points to the considerable clock speed advantage overcoming the thread count deficit.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are built on Intel's 14 nm process, but they come from different architectural generations. The E3-1240L v5 uses the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-DT codename, and belongs to the Xeon E3 family. The E-2124 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-S WS, and belongs to the Xeon E-2100 series. The E3-1240L v5 was released in October 2015, while the E-2124 arrived in July 2018.
The core counts are identical at 4 physical cores, but the threading approach differs. The E3-1240L v5 supports 8 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the E-2124 has 4 threads with no multi-threading enabled. This is a significant architectural decision: the older chip relies on additional logical threads to improve throughput, while the newer chip relies on higher clock speeds and per-core efficiency.
Cache configurations are identical in structure. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The die size is close as well: 122 mm² for the E3-1240L v5 and 126 mm² for the E-2124. The transistor count for the E3-1240L v5 is listed at 1,750 million, while the E-2124 does not have a recorded transistor count in the database.
Memory support diverges. The E3-1240L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The E-2124 supports only DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for the server/workstation segment. The E-2124 also includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics P630, while the E3-1240L v5 has no integrated graphics listed.
Both processors use Intel Socket 1151 and offer PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The E3-1240L v5 is marked as end-of-life, as is the E-2124.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The head-to-head data in the database covers six Cinebench tests, and the E-2124 wins all six. The margins are consistent, ranging from 2.9% to 3.7%. This consistency suggests a steady clock speed advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.
In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E-2124 scores 577 against 560 for the E3-1240L v5, a 2.9% lead. The single-core test in R15 shows a wider gap: 81 versus 78, which is a 3.7% advantage for the E-2124. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison.
Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test has the E-2124 at 2408 versus 2336, a 3% lead. The single-core test shows 339 versus 329, also a 2.9% delta. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23: multi-core is 5734 versus 5564, and single-core is 809 versus 785, both at 3% margins.
What is notable is that the E3-1240L v5's 8 threads do not help it close the gap in multi-core tests. The E-2124's 4 threads at higher clocks (3.30 GHz base, 4.30 GHz boost versus 2.10 GHz base, 3.20 GHz boost) are enough to overcome the threading advantage. In fact, the multi-core deltas are nearly identical to the single-core deltas, which implies that the E3-1240L v5's Hyper-Threading is not providing meaningful scaling in these Cinebench workloads.
For context, the E3-1240L v5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-10610U (avg score 1611, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core i7-970 (1613, -0.2%), the Intel Core i3-9100E (1605, +0.3%), and the Intel Core i3-9100T (1620, -0.7%). The E-2124's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4770HQ (1660, -0.1%), the Intel Core i5-4670K (1656, +0.2%), the AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (1653, +0.3%), and the Intel Core i5-7600T (1664, -0.4%). The average benchmark scores are 1609 for the E3-1240L v5 and 1658 for the E-2124, a difference of about 3%.
Specification Differences
The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The most obvious is TDP: the E3-1240L v5 is rated at 25 W, while the E-2124 is rated at 71 W. This is a 46 W difference in thermal design power, which has direct implications for cooling requirements and power delivery on the motherboard.
Clock speeds differ substantially. The E3-1240L v5 runs at 2.10 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The E-2124 runs at 3.30 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. That is a 1.20 GHz difference in base clock and a 1.10 GHz difference in boost clock.
Thread counts differ: 8 threads for the E3-1240L v5 versus 4 threads for the E-2124. The core count is the same at 4, but the E3-1240L v5 enables Hyper-Threading while the E-2124 does not.
Memory support is not identical. The E3-1240L v5 accepts both DDR3 and DDR4, while the E-2124 only accepts DDR4. Memory bandwidth is higher on the E-2124: 42.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s. Both are dual-channel.
Integrated graphics are present only on the E-2124, which has UHD Graphics P630. The E3-1240L v5 has no integrated graphics listed.
The launch MSRP differs. The E3-1240L v5 had a launch MSRP of $278, while the E-2124 had a launch MSRP of $198.
The release dates are about three years apart: October 2015 for the E3-1240L v5 and July 2018 for the E-2124.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?
A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 wins all single-core Cinebench tests. It leads by 3.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core (81 versus 78), by 2.9% in R20 single-core (339 versus 329), and by 3% in R23 single-core (809 versus 785).
Q: Does the E3-1240L v5's 8 threads beat the E-2124's 4 threads in multi-core tests?
A: No. The E-2124 wins every multi-core test despite having half the thread count. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the E-2124 scores 5734 versus 5564 for the E3-1240L v5, a 3% lead. The higher clock speeds of the E-2124 more than compensate for the missing Hyper-Threading.
Q: Which CPU is more power-efficient?
A: The E3-1240L v5 has a TDP of 25 W, compared to 71 W for the E-2124. That is a significant difference for systems where heat dissipation and power draw are primary concerns.
Q: Can the E3-1240L v5 use DDR3 memory?
A: Yes. The E3-1240L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration. The E-2124 only supports DDR4.
Q: Does the E-2124 have integrated graphics?
A: Yes. The E-2124 includes UHD Graphics P630. The E3-1240L v5 does not have any integrated graphics listed in the database.
Q: What is the performance gap in average benchmark scores?
A: The E3-1240L v5 has an average benchmark score of 1609, while the E-2124 scores 1658. The E-2124 sits about 3% higher, which aligns with the head-to-head Cinebench deltas.
The Verdict
The data is clear: the Intel Xeon E-2124 is the faster processor in every measured workload. If the task is rendering, compiling, or any Cinebench-style compute load, the E-2124 delivers a consistent 3% to 3.7% improvement over the E3-1240L v5. The higher base and boost clocks (3.30 GHz and 4.30 GHz versus 2.10 GHz and 3.20 GHz) are the deciding factor, and the lack of Hyper-Threading on the E-2124 does not hurt it in these tests because the E3-1240L v5's extra threads do not produce a meaningful multi-core advantage.
The E3-1240L v5 is not without a role. Its 25 W TDP makes it a candidate for passively cooled systems, dense server deployments, or any environment where power budget and thermal output are hard constraints. The performance penalty for that efficiency is small in percentage terms but consistent across all six benchmarks. For a workload that is not time-sensitive, the E3-1240L v5 can get the job done while consuming far less power.
For most buyers, the E-2124 is the better choice. It is faster in every test, has a lower launch MSRP ($198 versus $278), supports faster memory bandwidth (42.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s), and includes integrated graphics. The higher TDP is the only real downside, and that only matters if the system cannot dissipate 71 W of heat. The E3-1240L v5 is a niche product for efficiency-focused builds, while the E-2124 is the more balanced and capable workstation processor based on the recorded benchmarks.