Intel Xeon E-2124G vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2124G and the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 are both 14 nm server/workstation processors on the Intel Socket 1151 platform, but they represent different architectural generations and design philosophies. The data shows a clear performance hierarchy, with the older E3-1240 v5 leading in every benchmark test, while the E-2124G counters with a higher boost clock, a newer integrated GPU, and lower power consumption. Both chips sit at the 45th percentile in the database, indicating they occupy a similar tier of overall performance, yet their benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story about how they achieve that standing.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124G has a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, which is significantly higher than the 3.90 GHz boost clock of the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5.

Q: Does the E3-1240 v5 support more threads?

A: Yes. The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 features 8 threads with its 4 cores, while the Intel Xeon E-2124G is a 4-core, 4-thread processor.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124G includes HD Graphics P630, whereas the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the E-2124G at 2034 and the E3-1240 v5 at 2030, a difference of just 0.2%.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The E-2124G supports a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, which is higher than the 34.1 GB/s offered by the E3-1240 v5.

Q: Which CPU has a larger die size?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124G has a die size of 126 mm², which is slightly larger than the 122 mm² die of the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs represent different architecture families from Intel. The E-2124G is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS codename, while the E3-1240 v5 uses the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-DT codename. Both are fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process node, but the transistor counts differ. The E3-1240 v5 packs 1,750 million transistors, while the E-2124G does not have a listed transistor count. The die sizes are close, with the E-2124G at 126 mm² and the E3-1240 v5 at 122 mm².

The core and cache layouts are identical in structure: each has 4 physical cores, 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The fundamental architectural difference lies in thread support. The E3-1240 v5 supports Hyper-Threading, providing 8 threads, whereas the E-2124G does not, limiting it to 4 threads. This is a significant feature difference that impacts multi-threaded workloads heavily.

Memory support also diverges. The E-2124G supports only DDR4 memory, while the E3-1240 v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. This makes the older chip more flexible for legacy systems. The memory bandwidth also differs, with the E-2124G achieving 42.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s for the E3-1240 v5, despite both using a dual-channel bus. Another key feature difference is the integrated GPU: the E-2124G includes HD Graphics P630, while the E3-1240 v5 lacks any integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for video output.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins in every single test category, taking all 6 head-to-head wins. Its performance advantage is consistent across both single-core and multi-core workloads. The E3-1240 v5 leads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both in single-core and multi-core tests. This suggests that the older Skylake architecture, despite its lower boost clock, delivers better raw performance in these specific rendering and compute tasks. The 8 threads of the E3-1240 v5 give it a clear edge in multi-core scenarios, but it also wins single-core tests, indicating a higher IPC (instructions per clock) efficiency in these applications.

The Intel Xeon E-2124G does not win any benchmark tests. Its strengths lie in other areas not captured by the Cinebench suite. It has a significantly higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz, which the data suggests does not translate to a win in these specific tests. The E-2124G also offers a higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, a newer integrated GPU, and lower power consumption with a 71 W TDP versus 80 W. These features make it a more power-efficient and self-contained option, but the benchmark results show the E3-1240 v5 as the performance leader in compute-heavy tasks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications, aside from their identical core counts and cache sizes. The base clock is higher on the E3-1240 v5 at 3.50 GHz compared to 3.40 GHz on the E-2124G. However, the boost clock is much higher on the E-2124G at 4.50 GHz versus 3.90 GHz. The E3-1240 v5 has 8 threads, double the 4 threads of the E-2124G. The TDP is lower on the E-2124G at 71 W, while the E3-1240 v5 has a TDP of 80 W.

Memory support is a notable divergence, with the E-2124G supporting only DDR4, while the E3-1240 v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The memory bandwidth is higher on the E-2124G at 42.7 GB/s. The integrated graphics presence also differs, with the E-2124G featuring HD Graphics P630 and the E3-1240 v5 having none. The release dates show the E3-1240 v5 is older, launched in 2015, while the E-2124G came later in 2018. The die size is slightly larger on the E-2124G at 126 mm² versus 122 mm², and the E3-1240 v5 lists a transistor count of 1,750 million, which the E-2124G does not specify.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a dominant performance from the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E3-1240 v5 scores 707, while the E-2124G scores 613, a delta of -13.3% for the E-2124G. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap, with the E3-1240 v5 at 99 and the E-2124G at 86, a -13.1% difference. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20, where the multicore score is 2948 for the E3-1240 v5 versus 2558 for the E-2124G, and the single-core score is 416 versus 361, both showing a -13.2% delta.

The trend continues into Cinebench R23. In the multicore test, the E3-1240 v5 scores 7020, compared to 6092 for the E-2124G, a -13.2% difference. The single-core R23 test shows the E3-1240 v5 at 991 and the E-2124G at 860, again a -13.2% delta. The consistency of the -13% performance gap across all tests is striking. It suggests that the E3-1240 v5 has a fundamental architectural advantage in Cinebench workloads, likely due to its 8 threads for multi-threaded tests, but the single-core wins indicate a higher IPC as well. The E-2124G’s higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz is evidently not enough to overcome the E3-1240 v5’s efficiency in these rendering tasks.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the superior performer in benchmark tests. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with a consistent 13.2% lead over the E-2124G in most tests. The E3-1240 v5’s 8 threads and higher base clock of 3.50 GHz provide a solid foundation for both multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads in Cinebench. Users who prioritize raw compute performance in rendering or similar CPU-intensive tasks should choose the E3-1240 v5 based on the benchmark results.

The Intel Xeon E-2124G, despite losing all benchmarks, is not without merit. It offers a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz, a faster memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, and a lower TDP of 71 W, making it a more power-efficient choice. It also includes integrated graphics, which can be a deciding factor for systems that require video output without a discrete GPU. The E-2124G’s support for only DDR4 memory may be preferable for modern builds. However, for performance as measured by the Cinebench suite, the E3-1240 v5 is the clear winner. The choice comes down to whether the user needs the E-2124G’s specific features—power efficiency, integrated graphics, and newer memory support—or the E3-1240 v5’s superior benchmark scores. The data suggests that for pure compute performance, the older E3-1240 v5 remains the stronger option.