Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 across all six Cinebench tests, with every win falling in a narrow band of 1.1% to 1.4%. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the E3-1245 v5 scores 963 against 950 for the E3-1230 v5, a 1.4% advantage. That pattern holds across the entire suite: in Cinebench R15 multi-core the E3-1245 v5 posts 687 versus 678, a 1.3% lead, and in R15 single-core it is 96 versus 95, a 1.1% edge. The R20 results mirror this precisely, with the E3-1245 v5 ahead by 1.3% in both multi-core (2865 vs 2827) and single-core (404 vs 399). The R23 multi-core test shows 6822 for the E3-1245 v5 against 6733 for the E3-1230 v5, again a 1.3% gap.

These margins are small, but they are consistent and directionally unambiguous. Every recorded test, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, favors the E3-1245 v5. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the E3-1245 v5 averages 1973 across all recorded benchmarks, while the E3-1230 v5 averages 1947. That translates to a 1.3% overall difference in average performance. For a workload that runs for hours, this compounds into measurable time savings, though for interactive tasks the difference is barely perceptible.

Context from the nearest-rival data helps calibrate how significant these gaps are. The E3-1245 v5 sits within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 3 2300X (1968, delta 0.2%) and the Intel Core i3-N305 (1979, delta -0.3%), while the E3-1230 v5 is within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 (1945, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i7-9850HL (1941, delta 0.3%). Neither chip is notably faster or slower than its immediate peers; the E3-1245 v5's margin over the E3-1230 v5 is about the same magnitude as the differences between these rival processors. In other words, the two Xeons are close enough that the choice between them hinges on factors beyond raw Cinebench scores.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1245 v5 wins in every benchmark category recorded, so the use-case split is straightforward: it is the stronger part across the board. The most meaningful lead is in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the E3-1245 v5 scores 6822 versus 6733, a 89-point gap. That workload type, which scales with core and thread throughput, benefits from the E3-1245 v5's higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz against 3.80 GHz on the E3-1230 v5. Similarly, R20 multi-core shows 2865 versus 2827, and R15 multi-core shows 687 versus 678. For rendering, video encoding, or any software that uses all eight threads, the E3-1245 v5 delivers a small but repeatable advantage.

Single-threaded performance also favors the E3-1245 v5, though the margins are equally narrow. R23 single-core is 963 versus 950, R20 single-core is 404 versus 399, and R15 single-core is 96 versus 95. The base clock difference, 3.50 GHz versus 3.40 GHz, contributes to this edge in lightly threaded tasks. Legacy applications, spreadsheet recalculation, or older games that rely on one or two cores will run marginally faster on the E3-1245 v5.

The E3-1230 v5 has no benchmark wins to claim. Its only distinguishing feature in the recorded data is the absence of integrated graphics, a trait that matters for power draw and thermal output but does not show up in Cinebench scores. For a system that already has a discrete GPU, the E3-1230 v5's lack of an iGPU is neutral. For a headless server or a workstation that would otherwise rely on the processor's graphics output, the E3-1245 v5's HD Graphics P530 becomes the deciding factor.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same underlying silicon. They are built on Skylake-DT, use a 14 nm process from Intel, and pack 1,750 million transistors on a 122 mm² die. Each has 4 cores and 8 threads, with identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Both run on Intel Socket 1151, support dual-channel DDR3 and DDR4 memory with a 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, and provide Gen 3 PCIe with 16 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory support is present on both, making them suitable for error-corrected server or workstation configurations. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either part.

The core clock speeds are the primary divergence. The E3-1245 v5 runs at a 3.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the E3-1230 v5 runs at 3.40 GHz base and boosts to 3.80 GHz. Those 100 MHz differences in both base and boost account for the benchmark deltas observed. The E3-1245 v5's higher clocks give it a consistent edge in every Cinebench test, but the magnitude is small because the architecture, core count, and cache are otherwise identical.

The other meaningful difference is integrated graphics. The E3-1245 v5 includes HD Graphics P530, while the E3-1230 v5 has no integrated graphics at all. This is the only feature-level distinction beyond clock speeds. For a workstation that needs display output without a discrete card, the E3-1245 v5 offers an all-in-one solution. The E3-1230 v5 requires a separate GPU for any video output, which is typical for server parts intended for headless operation. Both are marked as end-of-life production status, with a release date of 2015-10-18. The E3-1245 v5 carries part number SR2LL, and the E3-1230 v5 carries SR2LE.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 averages 1973 across recorded benchmarks, while the Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5 averages 1947. The E3-1245 v5 holds a 1.3% lead in average score.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any single test?

A: The largest delta is 1.4%, recorded in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the E3-1245 v5 scores 963 against 950 for the E3-1230 v5.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 and the Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5 support ECC memory. They also share the same dual-channel memory bus and 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth for DDR3 and DDR4.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the E3-1230 v5 wins?

A: No. The recorded data shows 6 wins for the E3-1245 v5 and 0 wins for the E3-1230 v5 across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The E3-1245 v5 includes HD Graphics P530, while the E3-1230 v5 has no integrated graphics. This is a hardware feature difference, not a performance metric in the benchmarks.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The E3-1245 v5 is within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 3 2300X and the Intel Core i3-N305, while the E3-1230 v5 is within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 and the Intel Core i7-9850HL. Both Xeons are effectively mid-pack performers relative to their closest competitors.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 is the better performer in every measured dimension. Its 3.90 GHz boost clock against 3.80 GHz delivers a 1.3% to 1.4% advantage across all Cinebench workloads, and its average benchmark score of 1973 versus 1947 confirms that lead. For anyone running multi-threaded rendering or compilation tasks, the E3-1245 v5 will finish those jobs slightly faster, and for single-threaded workloads it holds the same edge. The inclusion of HD Graphics P530 on the E3-1245 v5 makes it the only one of the two that can drive a display without a discrete GPU, which is a practical advantage for a standalone workstation.

The E3-1230 v5 is not a bad processor; it is simply a slightly slower variant of the same chip. Its 3.40 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost clocks place it 100 MHz behind the E3-1245 v5 in both regimes, and the lack of integrated graphics narrows its use cases. Both parts are end-of-life, so availability in new systems is limited, but among used or existing inventory the E3-1245 v5 is the clear pick. The E3-1230 v5 makes sense only in a system where the absence of an iGPU is specifically desired, such as a strictly headless server where a discrete GPU is already installed and the lower launch MSRP of $261 versus $294 is a consideration. For every other scenario, the E3-1245 v5's 6-0 benchmark sweep and its integrated graphics make it the superior choice. The margins are small, but they are consistent, and in benchmark terms there is no workload category where the E3-1230 v5 is the better part.