Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 Comparison

Both the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 and the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 are quad-core, eight-thread Haswell-era server processors, yet they target very different platforms. The E5-2637 v3 is a high-end Haswell-EP part for the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, while the E3-1241 v3 is a Haswell-WS chip for the more mainstream Intel Socket 1150. The benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest, with the E5-2637 v3 winning all six head-to-head Cinebench tests by margins of less than 1.2%, despite its higher launch MSRP of $996 compared to the E3-1241 v3’s $273. This analysis breaks down the architectural differences, benchmark results, and the specific use cases where each processor holds an advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 has a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz, compared to the 3.70 GHz boost clock of the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3. Both share the same 3.50 GHz base clock.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 wins every multi-core test, but by very slim margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 6130 versus 6072 for the E3-1241 v3, a delta of exactly 1%. The R20 multi-core result shows a 0.9% advantage (2574 vs 2550).

Q: What are the memory platform differences?

A: The E5-2637 v3 supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The E3-1241 v3 is limited to DDR3 on a dual-channel bus, providing 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Is there a difference in PCIe lane counts?

A: Yes, the difference is substantial. The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 offers only 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 features a 15 MB shared L3 cache, significantly larger than the 8 MB shared L3 cache found on the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3.

Q: Did the E3-1241 v3 win any benchmark?

A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 won all six Cinebench tests, with winsA equal to 6 and winsB equal to 0. The E3-1241 v3’s closest result was a 0.8% deficit in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Architecture Differences

The most fundamental difference lies in the physical die and platform design. The E5-2637 v3, built on the Haswell-EP architecture, is a massive 356 mm² die containing 2,600 million transistors. In contrast, the E3-1241 v3, based on the Haswell-WS architecture, is a much smaller 160 mm² die with 1,400 million transistors. Both are manufactured on Intel’s 22 nm process, but the E5’s larger die accommodates a substantially larger 15 MB shared L3 cache versus the E3’s 8 MB. This cache disparity is likely a key factor in the E5’s consistent, albeit narrow, benchmark wins.

The platform separation is stark. The E5-2637 v3 uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, which enables a quad-channel DDR4 memory controller and a massive 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also exposes 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, making it suitable for heavy I/O workloads. The E3-1241 v3 is confined to Intel Socket 1150, featuring a dual-channel DDR3 controller with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and only 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. While the E3 supports ECC memory, its platform is architecturally closer to a consumer desktop system than a high-end workstation. The E5-2637 v3 also has a significantly higher TDP of 135 watts, compared to the E3-1241 v3’s 80 watts, reflecting the power requirements of its larger die and memory controller.

The core configuration is identical on paper—4 cores, 8 threads—and the base clock is the same at 3.50 GHz. However, the E3-1241 v3 has a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz versus the E5’s 3.70 GHz. Despite this clock disadvantage, the E5-2637 v3 still manages to edge out the E3 in every single-core test, suggesting that the larger cache and superior memory subsystem more than compensate for the 200 MHz difference in peak frequency. The release dates are also close, with the E3-1241 v3 launching in May 2014 and the E5-2637 v3 following in September 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data reveals a consistent pattern where the E5-2637 v3 wins by a hair in every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5 scores 617 against the E3’s 612, a 0.8% lead. The R15 single-core test shows the E5 ahead with 87 points versus 86 points, a 1.2% margin. This is the largest percentage win for the E5 across all benchmarks. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 2574 for the E5 and 2550 for the E3, a 0.9% difference. The R20 single-core test shows a 1.1% lead for the E5 (363 vs 359).

The most modern test, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. The E5-2637 v3 scores 6130 in multi-core, beating the E3-1241 v3’s 6072 by exactly 1%. In R23 single-core, the E5 posts 865 points against 857 for the E3, a 0.9% margin. The absolute differences are minuscule—never more than 58 points in multi-core and never more than 8 points in single-core. Yet the consistency is striking: the E5-2637 v3 wins all six head-to-head matchups.

The data implies that the E5’s architectural advantages, particularly the 15 MB L3 cache and quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth, provide a slight but real performance edge over the E3’s higher boost clock. The E3-1241 v3’s nearest rival list includes the Intel Core i7-4790T with an identical average score of 1755, while the E5-2637 v3 sits near the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3, both within 0.3% of its average score. This suggests that in terms of raw compute, the two Xeons are nearly interchangeable, with the platform features being the primary differentiator.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 is the faster processor in every tested workload, but the margin is almost negligible. Leading by 0.8% to 1.2% in Cinebench tests does not constitute a meaningful performance gap for most applications. The E5-2637 v3’s wins are likely attributable to its larger 15 MB L3 cache and superior 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth, which help offset its lower 3.70 GHz boost clock versus the E3-1241 v3’s 3.90 GHz.

The choice between these two should not be made on raw benchmark scores, as they are effectively tied. Instead, the decision hinges entirely on platform requirements. The E5-2637 v3 is the only option if the workload demands quad-channel DDR4 memory, 40 PCIe lanes, or the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. The E3-1241 v3, with its 80 W TDP and dual-channel DDR3, is a more power-efficient and platform-simple solution for basic server tasks. Given the E5-2637 v3’s launch MSRP of $996 versus the E3-1241 v3’s $273, the E5’s performance advantage is clearly not the reason to select it; the platform capabilities are. For pure compute per benchmark point, the E3-1241 v3 is the logical pick, but for expandability and memory throughput, the E5-2637 v3 stands alone.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several key specification fields, while sharing the same core count, thread count, base clock, architecture, process node, foundry, L1 and L2 cache sizes, ECC support, and lack of integrated graphics. The notable differences are as follows:

• Boost Clock: The E3-1241 v3 boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the E5-2637 v3 tops out at 3.70 GHz.
• TDP: The E5-2637 v3 has a 135 W TDP, significantly higher than the E3-1241 v3’s 80 W.
• Socket: The E5-2637 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3; the E3-1241 v3 uses Intel Socket 1150.
• Codename/Generation: The E5-2637 v3 is Haswell-EP (Xeon E5 series), while the E3-1241 v3 is Haswell-WS (Xeon E3 series).
• Transistor Count: The E5-2637 v3 has 2,600 million transistors, nearly double the E3-1241 v3’s 1,400 million.
• Die Size: The E5-2637 v3’s die is 356 mm², versus 160 mm² for the E3-1241 v3.
• L3 Cache: The E5-2637 v3 has 15 MB shared, compared to 8 MB shared on the E3-1241 v3.
• Memory Support: The E5-2637 v3 supports DDR4; the E3-1241 v3 supports DDR3.
• Memory Bus: The E5-2637 v3 is quad-channel; the E3-1241 v3 is dual-channel.
• Memory Bandwidth: The E5-2637 v3 offers 68.3 GB/s; the E3-1241 v3 offers 25.6 GB/s.
• PCIe Lanes: The E5-2637 v3 provides 40 lanes; the E3-1241 v3 provides 16 lanes.
• Release Date: The E3-1241 v3 launched in May 2014, four months before the E5-2637 v3 in September 2014.
• Launch MSRP: The E5-2637 v3 launched at $996, while the E3-1241 v3 launched at $273.
• Part Number: The E5-2637 v3 is SR202; the E3-1241 v3 is SR1R4.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 wins in every benchmark test, but its true strengths lie outside the Cinebench suite. With 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes and 68.3 GB/s of quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth, this processor is built for high-throughput server environments. Workloads that involve heavy data movement, such as large database operations, virtualization hosts with many VMs, or applications requiring extensive memory capacity, would benefit from the E5-2637 v3’s platform. The 15 MB L3 cache also gives it an edge in workloads with high cache reuse. Its 6-0 benchmark sweep, while narrow, confirms it is the faster part in raw compute as well.

The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 cedes the benchmark crown but wins on efficiency and platform simplicity. Its 80 W TDP is 55 W lower than the E5-2637 v3, making it far easier to cool and more power-efficient in a single-socket server. The dual-channel DDR3 memory and 16 PCIe lanes are sufficient for entry-level server duties like file serving, light web hosting, or dedicated application roles. The E3-1241 v3’s higher 3.90 GHz boost clock means it loses single-core tests by only 1.2% at most, so it remains highly responsive for lightly threaded tasks. For a cost-sensitive build on the Intel Socket 1150 platform, the E3-1241 v3 provides nearly identical Cinebench scores to the E5-2637 v3, with the data showing a maximum multi-core deficit of just 1%. The choice is clear: the E5-2637 v3 for memory bandwidth and expansion, the E3-1241 v3 for efficiency and lower platform cost.