Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 and the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 is remarkably close, with the E3-1240 v5 taking all six head-to-head wins. However, the margins are so narrow that the practical performance difference is nearly indistinguishable in most workloads. The largest single delta appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the E3-1240 v5 scores 416 against 415 for the E3-1260L v5, a 0.2% advantage. In Cinebench R15, both processors post identical scores of 707 in multi-core and 99 in single-core, meaning the head-to-head delta is exactly 0.0% in those tests.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the E3-1240 v5 scores 2948 versus 2946, a 0.1% edge. The Cinebench R23 results follow the same pattern: 7020 versus 7015 in multi-core (0.1% delta) and 991 versus 990 in single-core (0.1% delta). Across the entire benchmark suite, the E3-1240 v5 consistently wins, but never by more than two points in any given test. The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture: the E3-1240 v5 sits at 2030, while the E3-1260L v5 sits at 2029. The delta between them is 0.1%.

The nearestRivals data places both CPUs in the same performance tier. The E3-1240 v5 is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 (which scores 2029) and 0.1% ahead of the E3-1260L v5. It is also 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1130G7 (2026) and 0.1% behind the Intel Core i7-5775R (2031). For the E3-1260L v5, the rival list shows a 0.0% delta against the E3-1280 v5, a -0.1% delta against the E3-1240 v5, and a -0.1% delta against the Core i7-5775R. Both processors land at the 45th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they perform at the middle of the distribution.

The takeaway is clear: in raw compute throughput, these two parts are effectively equals. The E3-1240 v5 holds a razor-thin edge in every benchmark, but the differences are within run-to-run variance for most workloads. The meaningful distinction lies elsewhere — in power characteristics and operating frequency.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Skylake-DT architecture, built on Intel's 14 nm process node. 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. The transistor count is 1,750 million on a die size of 122 mm², and both are manufactured by Intel. The memory support is identical — DDR3 and DDR4, dual-channel, with 34.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC support enabled. Both use the Intel Socket 1151, provide PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and lack integrated graphics. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation, production status is End-of-life, and both were released on the same date.

The critical architectural differentiator is the base clock. The E3-1240 v5 runs at 3.50 GHz base, while the E3-1260L v5 runs at 2.90 GHz base. Both share the same 3.90 GHz boost clock. This base-clock gap is the reason the E3-1260L v5 carries a 45 W TDP versus 80 W for the E3-1240 v5. The lower base frequency allows the E3-1260L v5 to draw significantly less power under sustained all-core loads, even though peak boost performance is capped at the same 3.90 GHz. The part numbers differ (SR2LD for the E3-1240 v5, SR2LH for the E3-1260L v5), and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The launch MSRP for the E3-1240 v5 is $282. The launch MSRP for the E3-1260L v5 is $294. Both are end-of-life products, so current availability is limited to the secondary market, but the historical pricing shows the lower-power part was slightly more expensive at launch.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 edges out the E3-1260L v5 in all multi-core tests, but by tiny margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core both score 707. In R20, the E3-1240 v5 scores 2948 versus 2946 (0.1% delta). In R23, the E3-1240 v5 scores 7020 versus 7015 (0.1% delta). The differences are negligible for practical purposes.

Q: Do the two CPUs have the same single-core performance?

A: Nearly identical. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 99 for both. R20 single-core shows 416 versus 415 (0.2% delta favoring the E3-1240 v5). R23 single-core shows 991 versus 990 (0.1% delta). The E3-1240 v5 wins all single-core tests, but the margins are within 0.2%.

Q: What is the main reason the E3-1260L v5 has a lower TDP?

A: The E3-1260L v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 3.50 GHz for the E3-1240 v5. This lower base frequency enables the 45 W TDP rating, compared to 80 W for the E3-1240 v5. Both parts share the same 3.90 GHz boost clock and identical architecture.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5?

A: The E3-1240 v5 is 0.1% ahead of the E3-1280 v5 in average benchmark score (2030 versus 2029). The E3-1260L v5 matches the E3-1280 v5 exactly at 2029, showing a 0.0% delta. All three parts are effectively in the same performance class.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the E3-1240 v5 and the E3-1260L v5 support ECC memory, along with DDR3 and DDR4 in dual-channel configuration with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. This makes both suitable for server and workstation environments.

Q: Which CPU has better benchmark percentile placement?

A: Both are at the 45th percentile among all CPUs. The average benchmark score for the E3-1240 v5 is 2030, and for the E3-1260L v5 it is 2029. They occupy the same performance tier.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors:

• Base Clock: E3-1240 v5 at 3.50 GHz; E3-1260L v5 at 2.90 GHz.
• TDP: E3-1240 v5 at 80 W; E3-1260L v5 at 45 W.
• Launch MSRP: E3-1240 v5 at $282; E3-1260L v5 at $294.
• Part Number: E3-1240 v5 is SR2LD; E3-1260L v5 is SR2LH.
• Average Benchmark Score: 2030 for E3-1240 v5; 2029 for E3-1260L v5.

All other specifications are identical: 4 cores, 8 threads, 3.90 GHz boost clock, 14 nm process, 1,750 million transistors, 122 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 8 MB shared L3, DDR3/DDR4 dual-channel memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, no integrated graphics, Intel Socket 1151, Skylake architecture, and the same release date.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins in raw benchmark performance across every tested workload. It holds a 0.1% to 0.2% advantage in Cinebench R20 and R23, and ties in R15. This makes it the better choice for workloads where every bit of compute throughput matters, such as batch rendering, compilation, or scientific computing that runs at full sustained load. The 3.50 GHz base clock means it can maintain higher all-core frequencies without relying on boost behavior, which can be beneficial in scenarios with unpredictable or short-duration load spikes.

The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 wins in power efficiency. Its 45 W TDP versus 80 W for the E3-1240 v5 means it draws substantially less power under load, making it appropriate for dense server deployments, small-form-factor chassis, or environments where thermal headroom is limited. The performance penalty for this efficiency is minimal — the benchmark deltas are all within 0.2% — so the E3-1260L v5 offers nearly identical compute capability at roughly half the power envelope.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the E3-1240 v5 takes a slight lead in R20 and R23 single-core tests, but the E3-1260L v5 ties in R15 single-core. The shared 3.90 GHz boost clock means both parts can reach the same peak frequency for short bursts. For sustained multi-core throughput, the E3-1240 v5's higher base clock gives it a consistent, if small, edge. For power-constrained environments, the E3-1260L v5 is the clear pick, sacrificing only fractional benchmark points.

Neither processor offers integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU. Both are end-of-life products, so new-in-box availability is limited. The choice between them comes down to whether the 35 W TDP reduction is worth a 0.1% to 0.2% performance hit — for most deployments, the E3-1260L v5's efficiency profile is the more attractive option, especially in multi-socket or thermally constrained racks.