CPU Comparison
Intel Xeon E-2124G
Xeon E3-1260L v5
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Xeon E-2124G vs Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5
# Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data tells a surprisingly one-sided story. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 wins every single head-to-head comparison, taking all six contested benchmarks with a remarkably consistent margin. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the older Skylake part beats the Coffee Lake E-2124G by roughly 13% in every discipline. The multicore results show the E3-1260L v5 scoring 707 versus 613 in Cinebench R15, 2946 versus 2558 in R20, and 7015 versus 6092 in R23. Each of those represents a delta of approximately -13.2% from the perspective of the E-2124G.
The single-core results follow the same pattern. The E3-1260L v5 posts 99 in Cinebench R15 single-core against the E-2124G's 86, a 13.1% gap. In R20 single-core, the scores are 415 versus 361 (-13%), and in R23 single-core, 990 versus 860 (-13.1%). The consistency is striking, no matter which Cinebench version or whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the E3-1260L v5 maintains a nearly identical advantage.
This uniformity raises a question: why does a chip with a lower base clock (2.90 GHz versus 3.40 GHz) and a lower boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 4.50 GHz) outperform its newer counterpart so steadily? The answer appears to lie in thread count. The E3-1260L v5 has 8 threads across its 4 cores, while the E-2124G has only 4 threads. In single-core tests, the difference is likely attributable to architectural efficiency or turbo behavior under test conditions. In multicore tests, the extra threads provide a clear throughput advantage.
The Geekbench results are not part of the head-to-head table, but the standalone benchmarks show the E-2124G scoring 4263 multicore and 1438 singlecore. The E3-1260L v5 lacks Geekbench entries in this data set, so no direct comparison is possible there. Still, the Cinebench sweep is decisive, six wins, zero losses, and a consistent double-digit percentage gap across every iteration of the workload.
# Architecture Differences
Despite their shared 14 nm process node and Intel Socket 1151, these two Xeon processors come from different architectural generations. The E-2124G is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS variant, while the E3-1260L v5 uses the Skylake architecture, designated Skylake-DT. Both integrate 4 physical cores, but the thread configurations diverge, the E-2124G runs 4 threads total, while the E3-1260L v5 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading.
Cache hierarchies are identical in structure: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 on both chips. The die sizes are close, with the E-2124G measuring 126 mm² and the E3-1260L v5 at 122 mm². The transistor count for the E3-1260L v5 is listed at 1,750 million, while no transistor figure is provided for the E-2124G.
Memory support reveals a meaningful difference. The E-2124G supports DDR4 only, running dual-channel with a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The E3-1260L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a lower peak bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, and both provide PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.
The integrated graphics situation differs sharply. The E-2124G includes HD Graphics P630, making it a viable option for systems requiring a display output without a discrete GPU. The E3-1260L v5 has no integrated graphics at all, which means it requires a separate graphics card for any video output.
Power consumption is another clear differentiator. The E3-1260L v5 carries a 45 W TDP, while the E-2124G draws 71 W. That 26 W gap is substantial for dense server deployments or power-constrained environments. The E3-1260L v5 also launched earlier, with a release date in October 2015, while the E-2124G arrived in July 2018. Both parts are now end-of-life, but their release cadence means the E3-1260L v5 has been on the market longer.
Clock speeds favor the E-2124G on paper: 3.40 GHz base and 4.50 GHz boost versus 2.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost for the E3-1260L v5. Yet the benchmark results show the lower-clocked chip winning consistently, which suggests that the extra threads and possibly more efficient Skylake implementation outweigh the raw clock advantage of Coffee Lake in these workloads.
# Where Each One Wins
The data splits cleanly along thread-count lines. The E3-1260L v5 wins every benchmark where both chips were tested, making it the clear choice for threaded workloads such as video rendering, compilation, or any multi-threaded server task. Its 8 threads versus 4 gives it a structural advantage that no clock speed can overcome in heavily parallel scenarios.
The E-2124G's strengths lie elsewhere. Its integrated HD Graphics P630 means it can power a workstation without a discrete GPU, which is not possible with the E3-1260L v5. For systems that require graphics output, whether for a lightweight workstation, a virtualization host with console access, or a server with display requirements, the E-2124G is the only option between the two without adding a separate graphics card.
Power efficiency favors the E3-1260L v5. Its 45 W TDP is 26 W lower than the E-2124G's 71 W, and it still delivers higher benchmark scores across the board. For deployments where power draw and heat dissipation are primary concerns, the E3-1260L v5 is the better fit despite its lower clock speeds.
Memory flexibility also belongs to the E3-1260L v5. Its support for both DDR3 and DDR4 means it can be dropped into systems with either memory type, whereas the E-2124G is locked to DDR4. The E-2124G counters with higher peak memory bandwidth (42.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s), which could matter for memory-bound workloads that fit within its thread limitation.
For single-threaded tasks, the E-2124G's higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz looks appealing, but the benchmark data shows the E3-1260L v5 actually wins single-core tests too. This suggests the E-2124G's clock advantage does not translate into real-world single-thread superiority in these tests, possibly due to turbo behavior or IPC differences between the generations.
# FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?
A: The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests, scoring 707 in R15, 2946 in R20, and 7015 in R23, versus the E-2124G's 613, 2558, and 6092 respectively. The margin is approximately 13.2% in each case.
Q: Does the E-2124G have an advantage in single-core performance?
A: No. Despite a higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz versus 3.90 GHz, the E-2124G loses every single-core test. The E3-1260L v5 scores 99, 415, and 990 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 single-core, while the E-2124G scores 86, 361, and 860.
Q: Which processor supports integrated graphics?
A: Only the Intel Xeon E-2124G includes integrated graphics, featuring HD Graphics P630. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for any display output.
Q: What memory types are supported by each processor?
A: The E-2124G supports DDR4 only with dual-channel memory and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The E3-1260L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a lower peak bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.
Q: How do their power requirements compare?
A: The E3-1260L v5 has a TDP of 45 W, while the E-2124G has a TDP of 71 W. The E3-1260L v5 delivers higher benchmark scores while consuming less power.
Q: Which processor has more threads?
A: The E3-1260L v5 has 8 threads across 4 cores, while the E-2124G has 4 threads across 4 cores. This thread advantage contributes to the E3-1260L v5's consistent multi-core wins.
# The Verdict
The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 outperforms the Intel Xeon E-2124G in every measured workload, with a consistent 13% advantage across single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests. It achieves this while consuming 26 W less power and supporting both DDR3 and DDR4 memory. The only areas where the E-2124G holds a clear edge are integrated graphics, which the E3-1260L v5 lacks entirely, and peak memory bandwidth, where the E-2124G's 42.7 GB/s exceeds the E3-1260L v5's 34.1 GB/s.
For most server and workstation workloads that rely on CPU compute, the E3-1260L v5 is the better choice based on the data. Its 8 threads provide a structural advantage in parallel tasks, and its lower TDP makes it more attractive for dense deployments. The E-2124G makes sense only when integrated graphics are a requirement, or when the higher memory bandwidth is critical and the workload is not thread-bound.
The launch MSRP for the E-2124G is $218, while the E3-1260L v5 launched at $294. The E3-1260L v5's higher entry price is justified by its superior benchmark performance, though both parts are now end-of-life. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the E3-1260L v5 sits at 2029, nearly identical to the E-2124G's 2034, but the head-to-head tests reveal that the E3-1260L v5 consistently wins where it matters most.
# Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Xeon E-2124G | Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 |
|---|---|---|
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.90 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.90 GHz |
| TDP | 71 W | 45 W |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Skylake |
| Codename | Coffee Lake-S WS | Skylake-DT |
| Generation | Xeon E (Coffee Lake) | Xeon E3 (Skylake-DT) |
| Die Size | 126 mm² | 122 mm² |
| Transistors | Not listed | 1,750 million |
| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3, DDR4 |
| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 34.1 GB/s |
| Integrated Graphics | HD Graphics P630 | None |
| Release Date | 2018-07-11 | 2015-10-18 |
| Launch MSRP | $218 | $294 |
| Part Number | SR3WL | SR2LH |