Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 vs Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 and the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 are both 4-core, 8-thread server/workstation processors on Socket 1150, but they come from different generations. The E3-1270L v4 is a Broadwell-DT part on a 14 nm process, while the E3-1231 v3 is a Haswell-WS part on 22 nm. In the database's head-to-head Cinebench suite, the E3-1270L v4 wins every test by about 9%, yet the E3-1231 v3 holds a higher average benchmark score. This discrepancy invites a closer look at what each chip is doing differently.

Where Each One Wins

In the six recorded head-to-head benchmarks, all from Cinebench, the E3-1270L v4 takes every round. The wins are consistent: 9.2% in R15 multi-core, 9.5% in R15 single-core, 9.1% in R20 multi-core, 9.1% in R20 single-core, 9.1% in R23 multi-core, and 9.1% in R23 single-core. That means the E3-1270L v4 is the clear winner in rendering and single-threaded Cinebench tasks. The E3-1231 v3 has no head-to-head wins. However, the E3-1231 v3 does have Geekbench scores in the database: 3939 multi-core and 1109 single-core. The E3-1270L v4 has no Geekbench results recorded. As a result, the E3-1231 v3's average benchmark score of 1925 is higher than the E3-1270L v4's 1883, even though it loses every direct comparison. This suggests that the average score is influenced by the test set, not by raw performance in the shared tests. The E3-1270L v4's wins are not marginal; they are a steady 9% across all Cinebench versions, which points to a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same core and thread count, the same L1 and L2 cache sizes (64 KB and 256 KB per core), the same DDR3 dual-channel memory support, ECC capability, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, and no integrated graphics. The differences are substantial. The E3-1270L v4 uses a 14 nm process, while the E3-1231 v3 uses 22 nm. Despite the smaller process, the E3-1270L v4 has a larger die at 182 mm² compared to 160 mm² for the E3-1231 v3. The E3-1231 v3 lists 1,400 million transistors, while the E3-1270L v4 does not have a transistor count in the database. The L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the E3-1270L v4 and 8 MB shared on the E3-1231 v3. Base and boost clocks are lower on the E3-1270L v4: 3.00/3.60 GHz versus 3.40/3.80 GHz. The TDP is dramatically different: 45 W for the E3-1270L v4 versus 80 W for the E3-1231 v3. Memory bandwidth is higher on the E3-1270L v4 at 29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s. The E3-1270L v4 was released on 2015-06-01, while the E3-1231 v3 came out on 2014-05-10. The E3-1231 v3 is marked as end-of-life, while the E3-1270L v4 has no production status listed. The 14 nm process allows the E3-1270L v4 to achieve a much lower TDP while still delivering higher memory bandwidth. The lower clocks are offset by architectural improvements, as the benchmark results show. The larger die on the newer process is curious, but the transistor count is not available for comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the E3-1270L v4 scoring 656 against 601 for the E3-1231 v3, a 9.2% lead. In single-core R15, the scores are 92 and 84, a 9.5% gap. Moving to R20, the multi-core result is 2735 versus 2506, a 9.1% lead, and single-core is 385 versus 353, also 9.1%. R23 multi-core gives 6512 versus 5967, and single-core 919 versus 842, both 9.1% ahead. The consistency of the delta across all tests suggests a per-clock performance advantage rather than a scaling effect. The E3-1270L v4's lower boost clock (3.60 GHz) still beats the E3-1231 v3's 3.80 GHz in single-core tests, which points to a significant IPC improvement from the Broadwell architecture. The TDP difference (45 W vs 80 W) makes this lead even more notable, as the E3-1270L v4 achieves it with a much lower power envelope. The database does not include Geekbench results for the E3-1270L v4, so the only direct comparisons are the six Cinebench tests. The E3-1231 v3's Geekbench scores, while present, cannot be compared because the E3-1270L v4 lacks them. This means the head-to-head record is entirely one-sided, and the E3-1270L v4's advantage is not limited to a single Cinebench version; it persists across R15, R20, and R23.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has higher clock speeds?

A: The E3-1231 v3 has higher base and boost clocks at 3.40/3.80 GHz, while the E3-1270L v4 runs at 3.00/3.60 GHz.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the E3-1270L v4 and the E3-1231 v3 have ECC memory support.

Q: What is the L3 cache difference?

A: The E3-1231 v3 has 8 MB shared L3 cache, while the E3-1270L v4 has 6 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Which CPU has a lower TDP?

A: The E3-1270L v4 has a TDP of 45 W, while the E3-1231 v3 has a TDP of 80 W.

Q: Are there any Geekbench scores for the E3-1270L v4?

A: The database does not list Geekbench results for the E3-1270L v4; only Cinebench scores are recorded for it. The E3-1231 v3 has Geekbench scores of 3939 multi-core and 1109 single-core.

Q: What is the release date difference?

A: The E3-1270L v4 was released on 2015-06-01, while the E3-1231 v3 was released on 2014-05-10.

The Verdict

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the E3-1270L v4 wins every Cinebench test by about 9%. It also has a much lower TDP (45 W vs 80 W) and a newer process node. The E3-1231 v3 counters with higher clock speeds, more L3 cache, and a higher average benchmark score, but that average is inflated by Geekbench results that are not available for the E3-1270L v4. For workloads that resemble Cinebench, such as 3D rendering and multi-threaded content creation, the E3-1270L v4 is the better choice. The E3-1231 v3 might be considered if you need the higher clocks or the extra cache, but the recorded benchmarks do not show any advantage in the shared tests. Additionally, the E3-1231 v3 is end-of-life, while the E3-1270L v4's production status is not listed. The data suggests that the E3-1270L v4 is the superior processor for the tested workloads.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 | Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 |

|----------------|------------------------|------------------------|

| Process node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die size | 182 mm² | 160 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,400 million |

| Base clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 80 W |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory bandwidth | 29.9 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |

| Release date | 2015-06-01 | 2014-05-10 |

| Production status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $250 |

| Part number | SR2AZ | SR1R5 |

| Benchmarks recorded | 6 Cinebench scores | 6 Cinebench + 2 Geekbench scores |

| Average benchmark score | 1883 | 1925 |