Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 and Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 are both Skylake-DT server processors with 4 cores and 8 threads. They share the same 14 nm process, 1,750 million transistors, 122 mm² die size, and 8 MB shared L3 cache. Both support DDR3 and DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, and both include ECC support. The head-to-head benchmark data, however, shows a clear winner: the E3-1240L v5 records higher scores in all six Cinebench tests, despite having lower base and boost clocks. This analysis will examine the benchmark results, architectural differences, and practical implications for system builders.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results are unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1240L v5 scores 560 against 542 for the E3-1268L v5, a 3.2% advantage. The single-core test shows 78 versus 76, a 2.6% lead. Moving to R20, the multi-core result is 2336 versus 2260, a 3.3% gap, and single-core is 329 versus 319, a 3% lead. In R23, multi-core is 5564 versus 5383, again 3.3%, and single-core is 785 versus 760, 3.2%. The E3-1240L v5 wins all six tests, giving it a 6-0 record in this head-to-head. The average benchmark score for the E3-1240L v5 is 1609, while the E3-1268L v5 averages 1557. Notably, the E3-1268L v5 has higher base and boost clocks (2.40 GHz and 3.40 GHz) compared to the E3-1240L v5 (2.10 GHz and 3.20 GHz), yet it still trails in every benchmark. This suggests that factors beyond clock speed, such as TDP or integrated graphics, may influence the results, though the data does not isolate these variables.

The deltas are remarkably consistent, ranging from 2.6% to 3.3% across all tests. This consistency points to a systematic advantage for the E3-1240L v5 rather than a test-specific anomaly. The single-core tests show the smallest gap (2.6% in R15, 3% in R20, 3.2% in R23), while multi-core tests show a slightly larger gap (3.2% to 3.3%). This pattern indicates that the E3-1240L v5's advantage is present in both lightly threaded and fully threaded workloads. Both processors sit at the 39th percentile of all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier overall, but the head-to-head data reveals a clear internal hierarchy.

The Verdict

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the superior processor for compute workloads. It wins every Cinebench test, has a lower TDP (25W vs 35W), and a lower launch MSRP of $278 compared to $377 for the E3-1268L v5. The only advantage of the E3-1268L v5 is its integrated HD Graphics P530, which the E3-1240L v5 lacks. For systems that require an iGPU, the E3-1268L v5 is the only choice. For all other scenarios, the E3-1240L v5 offers better performance and lower power consumption. Both processors are end-of-life, so availability may be limited, but the data clearly favors the E3-1240L v5 in raw performance.

For a server or workstation that will use a discrete GPU, the E3-1240L v5 is the clear pick. It delivers higher Cinebench scores, consumes less power, and carries a lower launch MSRP. For a system that must output video without a discrete GPU, the E3-1268L v5 is the only option, as it includes HD Graphics P530. The E3-1268L v5 also has higher clock speeds, but these do not translate to higher benchmark scores in the recorded data. The verdict is straightforward: the E3-1240L v5 wins on performance and efficiency, while the E3-1268L v5 wins only on integrated graphics capability.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the Skylake-DT architecture, using Intel's 14 nm process. They share the same transistor count of 1,750 million and die size of 122 mm². Each has 4 cores and 8 threads, with 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Memory support is identical: DDR3 and DDR4, dual-channel, with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support. Both use Intel Socket 1151 and provide PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The key differences are: base clock 2.40 GHz for the E3-1268L v5 vs 2.10 GHz for the E3-1240L v5; boost clock 3.40 GHz vs 3.20 GHz; TDP 35W vs 25W; the E3-1268L v5 has integrated HD Graphics P530, while the E3-1240L v5 has none. Both are end-of-life and were released on 2015-10-18. Part numbers are SR2LQ for the E3-1268L v5 and SR2LN for the E3-1240L v5.

The absence of integrated graphics on the E3-1240L v5 may contribute to its lower TDP, though the data does not establish a causal link. The E3-1268L v5's HD Graphics P530 adds a display output capability, which is absent on the E3-1240L v5. This is the most significant functional difference beyond clock speeds and TDP. The higher clocks on the E3-1268L v5 are notable, but they do not result in higher benchmark scores, which suggests that the E3-1240L v5's lower TDP and lack of iGPU may allow it to sustain higher effective performance under the test conditions. The shared architecture, cache hierarchy, and memory support mean that the two chips are otherwise identical in their fundamental design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins all six Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 2.6% to 3.3% over the E3-1268L v5.

Q: Does the E3-1268L v5 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes HD Graphics P530. The E3-1240L v5 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The E3-1268L v5 has a TDP of 35W, while the E3-1240L v5 has a TDP of 25W.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both support ECC memory and have a dual-channel memory bus with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: What is the cache configuration?

A: Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Are they the same architecture?

A: Yes, both are Skylake-DT on a 14 nm process, with the same transistor count and die size.

Where Each One Wins

In every recorded Cinebench benchmark, the E3-1240L v5 wins. This includes multi-core and single-core tests across R15, R20, and R23. Therefore, for any CPU-bound workload, the E3-1240L v5 is the better choice. The E3-1268L v5, however, is the only one with integrated graphics, making it suitable for systems that require a display output without a discrete GPU. Additionally, the E3-1268L v5 has higher base and boost clocks, though this does not result in higher benchmark scores. The E3-1240L v5 also has a lower TDP, which may be advantageous in thermally constrained environments.

The data shows a clear split: the E3-1240L v5 dominates compute performance, while the E3-1268L v5 offers the only integrated graphics solution. For rendering, video encoding, and other multi-threaded workloads, the E3-1240L v5 is the superior part. It also wins single-core tests, making it suitable for lightly threaded applications. The E3-1268L v5, on the other hand, is the choice for compact systems or those that need a fallback display output. Its higher clock speeds may be relevant for workloads not captured by Cinebench, but the recorded data only covers Cinebench, so the E3-1240L v5's advantage is limited to these tests. In summary, the E3-1240L v5 wins on performance and efficiency, while the E3-1268L v5 wins on integrated graphics and higher clock specifications.