CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2276M and the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 are both server/workstation processors from Intel, but they represent very different eras and design philosophies. The data shows the E3-1285L v4, despite having fewer cores and a lower average benchmark score, wins every single head-to-head benchmark by a significant margin of roughly 21-22%. This creates a fascinating case where the newer, higher-core-count processor is consistently outperformed by its older rival in the specific tests recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 1996, compared to the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4's 1991. The delta between the two is a mere 0.3%, placing them in the same performance tier.

Q: Why does the E3-1285L v4 win all the head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The data shows the E3-1285L v4 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a consistent lead of about 21.5% in both single-core and multi-core workloads. This is despite the E-2276M having two more cores and four more threads.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these processors?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 has a higher TDP of 65 watts.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E-2276M and the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 support ECC memory, which is a key feature for workstation and server stability.

Q: What is the difference in their integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2276M features UHD Graphics P630, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 features Intel Iris Pro P6300.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Intel Xeon E-2276M is based on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake-H codename, and belongs to the Xeon E-2200 series. In contrast, the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 is built on the older Broadwell architecture, with the codename Broadwell-DT, and belongs to the Xeon E3 (Broadwell-DT) generation.

Both processors are manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process node, but the design choices diverge significantly. The E-2276M has a die size of 154 mm², while the E3-1285L v4 has a slightly larger die size of 160 mm² and contains 1,400 million transistors. The E-2276M features 6 cores and 12 threads, whereas the E3-1285L v4 offers fewer resources with 4 cores and 8 threads.

Cache configurations also differ. The E-2276M provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a larger 12 MB shared L3 cache. The E3-1285L v4 matches the per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes, but its shared L3 cache is only 6 MB, half the size of its rival's. Memory support is another major architectural split: the E-2276M uses DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the E3-1285L v4 uses the older DDR3 standard with a dual-channel bus and significantly lower bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The platforms also differ, with the E-2276M using the Intel BGA 1440 socket and the E3-1285L v4 using the Intel Socket 1150. The E-2276M supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the E3-1285L v4 also supports PCIe Gen 3 but without a specified lane count.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 is the clear performance winner in this comparison. It dominates every single head-to-head benchmark, achieving scores that are consistently about 21.5% higher than the E-2276M across all Cinebench tests. This is a remarkable result given that the E-2276M has 50% more cores and 50% more threads. The E3-1285L v4 also has a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz versus 2.80 GHz, although its boost clock of 3.80 GHz is lower than the E-2276M's 4.70 GHz.

However, the choice is not entirely one-sided. The E-2276M offers a more modern platform with DDR4 memory support and a higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, which could be relevant for certain workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive. It also has a lower TDP of 45 watts, making it more power-efficient on paper. The E-2276M was released in 2019, while the E3-1285L v4 is from 2015. The data suggests that for raw computational throughput in the tested benchmarks, the older E3-1285L v4 is the better choice. Users requiring the latest memory technology and a more modern socket might prefer the E-2276M despite its benchmark deficit.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every key specification. The most obvious difference is core count: the E-2276M has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the E3-1285L v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds also vary significantly. The E-2276M has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The E3-1285L v4 has a higher base clock of 3.40 GHz but a much lower boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The TDP is also different, with the E-2276M rated at 45 watts and the E3-1285L v4 rated at 65 watts.

The memory support is a major differentiator. The E-2276M supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The E3-1285L v4 supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and a lower bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The sockets are incompatible: the E-2276M uses Intel BGA 1440, while the E3-1285L v4 uses Intel Socket 1150. The cache hierarchy differs as well, with the E-2276M having 12 MB of shared L3 cache versus the E3-1285L v4's 6 MB. The integrated graphics are different too, with the E-2276M featuring UHD Graphics P630 and the E3-1285L v4 featuring Intel Iris Pro P6300. The E-2276M was released on 2019-05-28, while the E3-1285L v4 was released on 2015-06-01.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are starkly one-sided. The Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 wins all six recorded tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E3-1285L v4 scores 693 against the E-2276M's 544, a delta of -21.5%. The single-core test shows a similar pattern: 97 versus 76, a -21.6% delta. This trend continues in Cinebench R20, with the E3-1285L v4 winning multicore 2891 to 2268 (-21.5%) and single-core 407 to 320 (-21.4%). The most recent tests, Cinebench R23, reinforce the pattern. The E3-1285L v4 scores 6884 in multicore versus the E-2276M's 5400, a -21.6% delta. In single-core, it scores 971 versus 762, a -21.5% delta.

The consistency of the margin is notable; across six different tests spanning three generations of Cinebench, the delta remains virtually constant at around -21.5%. This indicates a systemic performance advantage for the E3-1285L v4 in these workloads, rather than a test-specific anomaly. The E-2276M's higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz does not translate into a win in any test, suggesting that the architectural efficiency of the Broadwell-based E3-1285L v4 provides a significant per-clock advantage in Cinebench.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1285L v4 is the winner in all tested compute scenarios. It excels in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads, making it the clear choice for applications that rely on CPU rendering or similar compute tasks. The E-2276M does not win any of the recorded head-to-head benchmarks. Its only advantages lie in platform features, not in the measured performance tests. The E-2276M offers a lower TDP of 45 watts versus 65 watts, which could be a factor in thermally constrained systems. It also supports newer DDR4 memory with higher bandwidth (42.7 GB/s vs 29.9 GB/s), which may benefit workloads that are heavily dependent on memory throughput, though this is not reflected in the Cinebench scores.

For users prioritizing raw CPU performance in the tested applications, the E3-1285L v4 is the data-backed choice. For users who value a more modern memory standard, a lower power envelope, and a newer platform, the E-2276M presents a compelling feature set, even though its benchmark scores are lower. The data shows that in this specific comparison, architectural efficiency trumps core count and clock speed for the measured benchmarks.