Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 and the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 are both four-core, eight-thread server processors from Intel, but they target different platform philosophies. The E5-1410 v2 is built for the dual-socket-capable Socket 1356 platform, while the E3-1240L v3 is a low-power, single-socket part for Socket 1150. Benchmark data from the database shows a clear, consistent, though narrow, performance advantage for the E3-1240L v3 across all recorded Cinebench tests. The following analysis breaks down the measured differences, architectural distinctions, and practical use cases based solely on the recorded data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are remarkably consistent. Across six Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins every single matchup. The margins are tight, ranging from 1.5% to 2.1%, but they are uniform across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In Cinebench R15, the multi-core test shows the E3-1240L v3 scoring 486 against the E5-1410 v2's 476, a delta of -2.1% from the perspective of the E5-1410 v2. The single-core R15 test is closer, with the E3-1240L v3 at 68 and the E5-1410 v2 at 67, a 1.5% difference. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20. The multi-core score favors the E3-1240L v3 at 2027 versus 1987, a 2% gap. The single-core R20 result shows 286 for the E3-1240L v3 and 280 for the E5-1410 v2, again a 2.1% advantage.

The most recent test generation, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend. The E3-1240L v3 posts a multi-core score of 4827, while the E5-1410 v2 achieves 4732, a 2% difference. In single-core R23, the E3-1240L v3 scores 681, and the E5-1410 v2 scores 668, a 1.9% gap. The data shows no scenario where the E5-1410 v2 takes the lead. The wins for the E3-1240L v3 are consistent, and the margins, while small, are reproducible across all three generations of the Cinebench benchmark.

The average benchmark score places the E3-1240L v3 at 1396, while the E5-1410 v2 sits at 1368. This represents a roughly 2% overall advantage for the E3-1240L v3 in the database's aggregate scoring. The percentile rankings are also close, with the E3-1240L v3 at the 37th percentile of all CPUs and the E5-1410 v2 at the 36th percentile. Looking at the nearest rivals in the database, the E5-1410 v2 sits within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon D-1521 and the AMD Opteron 6376, and within 0.1% of the Intel Core i7-3820QM. The E3-1240L v3 is similarly clustered, sitting within 0.6% of the Intel Core i5-6500TE, the Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5, the Intel Xeon E-2104G, and the Intel Pentium Gold G7400TE. This data indicates that both chips perform in the same broad tier, but the E3-1240L v3 is consistently at the higher end of that tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and are designed for different sockets. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 is based on the Ivy Bridge architecture, specifically the Ivy Bridge-EN codename. It uses the Intel Socket 1356. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is based on the Haswell architecture, with the Haswell-WS codename, and uses the Intel Socket 1150.

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm process node, but the transistor counts and die sizes differ. The E5-1410 v2 contains 1,860 million transistors on a die size of 257 mm². The E3-1240L v3 contains 1,400 million transistors on a smaller die of 160 mm². This difference reflects the more complex memory controller and additional PCIe lanes on the E5-1410 v2.

The cache hierarchy is another point of divergence. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the L3 cache is different. The E5-1410 v2 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E3-1240L v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on the E5-1410 v2 is a notable advantage in theory, but the benchmark results do not reflect a performance benefit in the tested workloads.

Clock speeds tell a significant story. The E5-1410 v2 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The E3-1240L v3 has a much lower base clock of 2000.00 MHz, which translates to 2.00 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The E3-1240L v3 gives up 800 MHz at base clock but only 200 MHz at boost clock. This explains why the single-core performance gap is smaller than the base clock difference suggests. The E3-1240L v3 can boost close to the E5-1410 v2's maximum, and its newer Haswell architecture likely provides better instructions per clock.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The E5-1410 v2 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 80 watts. The E3-1240L v3 has a TDP of just 25 watts. This is a massive difference, with the E3-1240L v3 consuming only a fraction of the power budget. The "L" in the E3-1240L v3's name indicates a low-power variant, and the data confirms this positioning.

Memory support also differs. Both support DDR3 memory and ECC memory. However, the E5-1410 v2 uses a triple-channel memory bus, providing a theoretical memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s. The E3-1240L v3 uses a dual-channel bus, with a theoretical bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The E5-1410 v2 has the advantage in memory bandwidth, which could matter in memory-intensive server workloads.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The E5-1410 v2 provides Gen 3, 24 lanes from the CPU. The E3-1240L v3 provides Gen 3, 16 lanes. Again, the E5-1410 v2 has more expansion headroom. The E5-1410 v2 also has a higher TDP and a larger die, which suggests a more robust power delivery design, even though the E3-1240L v3 wins in performance per watt.

Neither processor has integrated graphics, so both require a discrete GPU or a server board with a management controller. Both are marked as end-of-life in production status. The E5-1410 v2 was released on 2014-01-08, and the E3-1240L v3 was released on 2014-05-10. The E3-1240L v3 has a launch MSRP of $278, which can be referenced once.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins in every measured compute benchmark. The six head-to-head tests all favor the E3-1240L v3. This means that for raw Cinebench rendering performance, both in single-threaded and multi-threaded scenarios, the E3-1240L v3 is the superior choice. The margins are small, but they are consistent. The database's average score also confirms this, with the E3-1240L v3 at 1396 versus 1368 for the E5-1410 v2.

The E5-1410 v2 does not win any of the recorded benchmarks. However, the architectural data suggests where it could theoretically be stronger. It has a larger L3 cache (10 MB versus 8 MB), higher memory bandwidth (32.0 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s), and more PCIe lanes (24 versus 16). For workloads that are highly dependent on memory throughput or require more expansion cards, the E5-1410 v2's platform might be more suitable. The triple-channel memory bus is a real advantage for server applications that move large amounts of data. The extra PCIe lanes also allow for more NVMe drives, network cards, or other accelerators.

The E3-1240L v3 wins decisively on power efficiency. The 25-watt TDP versus 80-watt TDP means it can be cooled passively or with a very small heatsink. For dense server deployments or small form factor systems, this is a major win. The performance per watt is far superior for the E3-1240L v3, as it delivers slightly better performance while consuming less than a third of the power budget.

In terms of platform flexibility, the E5-1410 v2 supports a dual-socket configuration, given its socket 1356 design, although the data only records a single processor. The E3-1240L v3 is strictly single-socket. For a user who needs to scale to two processors, the E5-1410 v2 platform is the only option. For a user who needs a single, efficient, and slightly faster processor, the E3-1240L v3 is the clear winner.

The release dates are close, with the E5-1410 v2 coming out in January 2014 and the E3-1240L v3 in May 2014. Both are end-of-life, so neither has a future upgrade path within its generation. The E5-1410 v2's part number is SR1B0, and the E3-1240L v3's part number is SR1T8.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 scores 4827, while the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 scores 4732. The E3-1240L v3 leads by 2% in this test.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has a TDP of 80 watts. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a TDP of 25 watts. The E3-1240L v3 uses significantly less power.

Q: How does single-core performance compare between the two?

A: The E3-1240L v3 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. In R15, it scores 68 versus 67. In R20, it scores 286 versus 280. In R23, it scores 681 versus 668.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The E5-1410 v2 has 2 MB more.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The E5-1410 v2 supports triple-channel DDR3 with a theoretical bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s. The E3-1240L v3 supports dual-channel DDR3 with a theoretical bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

Q: Are both processors based on the same architecture?

A: No. The E5-1410 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture with the codename Ivy Bridge-EN. The E3-1240L v3 uses the Haswell architecture with the codename Haswell-WS.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear picture. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 is the better processor for raw compute performance in the tested Cinebench workloads. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with margins between 1.5% and 2.1%. Its average benchmark score of 1396 is higher than the E5-1410 v2's 1368. For any user prioritizing single-threaded or multi-threaded CPU rendering, the E3-1240L v3 is the correct choice.

The E3-1240L v3 also wins decisively on power efficiency. Its 25-watt TDP is a fraction of the E5-1410 v2's 80-watt TDP, and it still manages to outperform the higher-power chip. This makes it ideal for dense, power-constrained environments or silent computing setups.

The E5-1410 v2's advantages are not in raw speed but in platform capabilities. It offers a larger L3 cache of 10 MB, a higher theoretical memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s via triple-channel memory, and more PCIe lanes at 24 versus 16. For a server that needs to handle memory-heavy workloads or requires multiple expansion cards, the E5-1410 v2 provides a more capable platform. Its 1,860 million transistors and 257 mm² die size also indicate a more complex and potentially more robust memory controller.

The choice depends on the workload. For a compact, efficient server or workstation where power consumption is critical and performance is still needed, the E3-1240L v3 is the superior product. It is faster in every recorded benchmark and uses less power. For a larger, multi-socket-capable server with high memory bandwidth requirements and many peripherals, the E5-1410 v2's platform features make it the more appropriate foundation, despite its lower benchmark scores. The data shows that the E3-1240L v3 is the better CPU for pure compute, while the E5-1410 v2 is the better CPU for expansion and memory throughput. The percentile data confirms both are mid-range performers, but the E3-1240L v3 holds a slight edge in the 37th percentile versus the 36th percentile for the E5-1410 v2.