Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 vs Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 Comparison

# Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 vs Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3

The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 are both 4-core, 8-thread server/workstation processors on the Intel Socket 1150 platform, but they represent two distinct generations of Intel silicon. The E3-1285 v4, built on Broadwell-DT, wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the comparison, with margins ranging from 10.5% to 10.8% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests. The E3-1231 v3, a Haswell-WS part, counters with a lower 80W TDP and a larger 8MB L3 cache, though it lags in raw performance. Both processors sit at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs tracked, indicating mid-pack positioning despite their age.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 outperforms the Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 in every measured benchmark. Across six Cinebench tests, the E3-1285 v4 maintains a consistent 10.5% to 10.8% lead, whether in single-threaded or multi-threaded workloads. For users prioritizing raw compute throughput — rendering, simulation, or heavily threaded server tasks — the E3-1285 v4 is the clear choice based on scores alone. Its 664 Cinebench R15 multi-core score versus 601 for the E3-1231 v3 and its 6596 R23 multi-core score versus 5967 demonstrate a decisive edge that scales across workload types.

However, the E3-1231 v3 is not without merit in specific scenarios. It draws 15W less power (80W TDP versus 95W), which matters in dense server deployments or thermally constrained chassis. The E3-1231 v3 also offers 8MB of shared L3 cache versus 6MB on the E3-1285 v4, a difference that could benefit cache-sensitive workloads despite the overall performance deficit. The E3-1285 v4 includes integrated Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics, while the E3-1231 v3 has none — a decisive factor for systems that require a display output without a discrete GPU. Both are end-of-life products, so availability and platform compatibility should drive final decisions. The E3-1285 v4 launched with an MSRP of $556, while the E3-1231 v3 launched at $250. For pure performance, the E3-1285 v4 wins; for lower power draw and larger cache at a lower launch price, the E3-1231 v3 holds appeal.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share a common foundation — 4 cores, 8 threads, dual-channel DDR3 memory support, and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU — but diverge significantly in their underlying silicon. The E3-1285 v4 is built on Intel's 14nm process node, a full generation ahead of the 22nm node used by the E3-1231 v3. This node advantage explains part of the performance gap: the E3-1285 v4 achieves higher scores while running at nearly identical clock speeds. The E3-1285 v4 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to 3.40 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost on the E3-1231 v3. The 100 MHz base clock difference is modest, yet the benchmark deltas exceed 10%, suggesting architectural improvements beyond clock rate.

Cache configurations differ notably. The E3-1285 v4 provides 64KB L1 per core and 256KB L2 per core, identical to the E3-1231 v3, but the E3-1285 v4 has 6MB shared L3 while the E3-1231 v3 has 8MB shared L3. The E3-1231 v3's larger L3 cache is a counterintuitive advantage given its older architecture, potentially aiding workloads with high data locality. The E3-1231 v3 also has a documented transistor count of 1,400 million and a die size of 160 mm², whereas the E3-1285 v4's transistor count is not listed but its die size is 182 mm² — larger despite the smaller process node, likely due to the integrated GPU. Memory bandwidth favors the E3-1285 v4 at 29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s for the E3-1231 v3, a 16.8% improvement that aligns with its performance lead.

The most significant feature divergence is integrated graphics. The E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300, enabling display output and basic GPU acceleration without a discrete card. The E3-1231 v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate GPU for any video output. Both support ECC memory, critical for workstation reliability. The E3-1285 v4 was released on 2015-06-01, roughly a year after the E3-1231 v3's 2014-05-10 release date. Both use the same Intel Socket 1150, meaning they are platform-compatible with the same motherboards, though BIOS updates may be required for the newer Broadwell part.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a consistent pattern: the E3-1285 v4 wins all six tests, with deltas tightly clustered between 10.5% and 10.8%. This uniformity suggests a systematic architectural advantage rather than workload-specific optimization. Starting with Cinebench R15, the E3-1285 v4 scores 664 in multi-core versus 601 for the E3-1231 v3, a 10.5% lead. In single-core R15, the margin widens slightly to 10.7%, with scores of 93 and 84 respectively. The R15 single-core result is notable because it isolates per-thread performance — the E3-1285 v4's higher base clock and newer architecture deliver a clear advantage even when only one core is active.

Cinebench R20 reinforces the trend. Multi-core scores are 2770 for the E3-1285 v4 and 2506 for the E3-1231 v3, again a 10.5% gap. Single-core R20 shows the largest delta of the entire comparison: 391 versus 353, a 10.8% lead for the E3-1285 v4. This test is particularly telling because it stresses the CPU's ability to execute instructions with minimal parallelism, where IPC (instructions per cycle) improvements from the Broadwell architecture shine. The E3-1285 v4's 14nm process enables higher efficiency and potentially better clock behavior under load.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding workload in the suite, shows the same pattern. Multi-core scores of 6596 versus 5967 represent a 10.5% advantage for the E3-1285 v4. Single-core R23 scores of 931 versus 842 show a 10.6% lead. The consistency across R15, R20, and R23 — each with different workload intensities and durations — indicates that the E3-1285 v4's advantage is not a short-burst effect but holds under sustained load. The E3-1231 v3's larger 8MB L3 cache does not translate into a benchmark win, suggesting that the E3-1285 v4's memory bandwidth advantage (29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s) and architectural efficiency outweigh cache capacity benefits.

The wins tally is 6-0 in favor of the E3-1285 v4, with no tests where the E3-1231 v3 comes out ahead. The average benchmark score for the E3-1285 v4 is 1908, while the E3-1231 v3 averages 1925 — a curious inversion given the head-to-head results. This discrepancy arises because the E3-1231 v3 has additional Geekbench scores (multi-core 3939, single-core 1109) that are not present for the E3-1285 v4, and these Geekbench numbers may weight the average differently. The nearest rivals for each processor reinforce their similar overall positioning: the E3-1285 v4 sits within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5, while the E3-1231 v3 is within 0.3% of the Intel Core i7-6700T.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins all multi-core tests, with scores of 664, 2770, and 6596 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 respectively, versus 601, 2506, and 5967 for the E3-1231 v3 — a consistent 10.5% advantage.

Q: Does the E3-1231 v3 have any advantages over the E3-1285 v4?

A: Yes. The E3-1231 v3 has a lower TDP of 80W versus 95W, a larger 8MB shared L3 cache versus 6MB, and a lower launch MSRP of $250 versus $556. It also has a smaller die size at 160 mm² versus 182 mm².

Q: Can I use the same motherboard for both processors?

A: Yes, both use the Intel Socket 1150 and support dual-channel DDR3 memory with PCIe Gen 3, 16 lanes from the CPU. However, the E3-1285 v4 is a newer Broadwell part released on 2015-06-01, so motherboard BIOS compatibility should be verified.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 includes integrated graphics (Intel Iris Pro P6300). The E3-1231 v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do these processors compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: Both sit at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. The E3-1285 v4's average benchmark score of 1908 places it near the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 (1907) and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910). The E3-1231 v3's average of 1925 is close to the Intel Core i7-1180G7 (1930) and AMD Opteron 6348 (1930).

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The E3-1285 v4 supports 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth, while the E3-1231 v3 supports 25.6 GB/s — a 16.8% difference in favor of the E3-1285 v4.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins in every performance domain measured. Its 10.5% to 10.8% lead across all Cinebench versions — R15, R20, and R23 — makes it the superior choice for rendering, video encoding, scientific computation, and any workload that scales with multi-core throughput. The single-core wins (93 versus 84 in R15, 391 versus 353 in R20, 931 versus 842 in R23) indicate better responsiveness for lightly threaded applications like legacy software or database queries that run on one thread. The integrated Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics on the E3-1285 v4 make it uniquely suited for headless servers that occasionally need display output, or for workstations where a discrete GPU is unnecessary. Its higher memory bandwidth (29.9 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s) benefits memory-bound tasks such as large dataset analysis or virtual machine hosting.

The Intel Xeon E3-1231 v3 wins in efficiency and cost-sensitive scenarios, though the data shows no benchmark victory. Its 80W TDP versus 95W makes it more suitable for power-constrained environments — dense blade servers, small form factor workstations, or systems with modest cooling solutions. The 8MB L3 cache versus 6MB provides a theoretical edge for workloads with high cache reuse, such as certain database workloads or compression algorithms, though this does not manifest in the Cinebench results. The lower launch MSRP of $250 versus $556 makes it an economical choice for bulk deployments where per-unit cost matters more than peak performance. For legacy systems requiring a drop-in replacement on an existing Socket 1150 motherboard, the E3-1231 v3's earlier release date (2014-05-10) may offer simpler compatibility, though both are end-of-life parts.

In summary, the E3-1285 v4 is the performance king with a 6-0 sweep, while the E3-1231 v3 offers a lower power draw, larger cache, and lower launch price. The choice hinges on whether raw compute power or efficiency and cost take priority in the target deployment.