Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 vs Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 wins every single benchmark in this comparison. Across all six Cinebench tests, the E5-4610 v3 takes the win, with the E3-1241 v3 failing to secure a single victory. The margins are narrow but consistent, ranging from 1.1% to 1.4% depending on the workload.

In the multicore tests, the E5-4610 v3 posts a Cinebench R15 score of 619 against 612 for the E3-1241 v3, a 1.1% edge. The gap widens slightly in Cinebench R20, where the E5-4610 v3 scores 2580 versus 2550, a 1.2% advantage. The largest delta comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the E5-4610 v3 leads by 1.4% with a score of 364 against 359. That 5-point gap is the biggest single-core margin in the entire head-to-head.

Single-core performance tells a similar story across the board. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the E5-4610 v3 scores 87 versus 86, a 1.2% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 867 against 857, again 1.2%. The consistency of these margins is notable — the E5-4610 v3 never wins by more than a handful of points, but it never loses a single test either.

What makes these results interesting is the underlying hardware mismatch. The E5-4610 v3 packs 10 cores and 20 threads at a 1.70 GHz base clock, while the E3-1241 v3 uses 4 cores and 8 threads at a 3.50 GHz base clock with a 3.90 GHz boost. The E5-4610 v3 has no boost clock listed in the data, yet it still edges out the higher-clocked E3-1241 v3 in every test. This suggests the 10-core configuration's raw throughput advantage compensates for its much lower clock speed, even in single-threaded workloads where clock speed typically dominates.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The E5-4610 v3 averages 1777 across all benchmarks, while the E3-1241 v3 averages 1756. Both CPUs sit at the 41st percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier despite their architectural differences. The nearest rivals for the E5-4610 v3 include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 with an average score of 1778 (a 0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 at 1773 (0.2% delta). The E3-1241 v3's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-4790T at 1755, essentially a dead heat with 0% delta.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multicore performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 wins all three multicore tests. It scores 619 in Cinebench R15, 2580 in R20, and 6144 in R23, compared to 612, 2550, and 6072 for the E3-1241 v3 respectively. The margins are 1.1% in R15 and 1.2% in both R20 and R23.

Q: Does the E3-1241 v3's higher clock speed help it in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite a 3.50 GHz base clock and 3.90 GHz boost (versus 1.70 GHz for the E5-4610 v3), the E3-1241 v3 loses every single-core test. The E5-4610 v3 leads by 1.2% in Cinebench R15, 1.4% in R20, and 1.2% in R23 single-core.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The E5-4610 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1777, while the E3-1241 v3 averages 1756. That is a 21-point difference, placing both CPUs at the 41st percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The E3-1241 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The E5-4610 v3 has 6 more cores and 12 more threads than its rival.

Q: How do their cache sizes compare?

A: The E5-4610 v3 has 25 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E3-1241 v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core.

Q: What are the launch MSRPs of these CPUs?

A: The E5-4610 v3 had a launch MSRP of $1219. The E3-1241 v3 had a launch MSRP of $273.

Where Each One Wins

The E5-4610 v3 wins in every measured category. That is the headline — six wins out of six head-to-head benchmarks. It leads in both multicore and single-core performance across all three Cinebench generations (R15, R20, and R23). The largest advantage is 1.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core; the smallest is 1.1% in Cinebench R15 multicore.

There is no benchmark category where the E3-1241 v3 comes out ahead. Its higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 1.70 GHz) and boost clock (3.90 GHz, which the E5-4610 v3 lacks entirely) do not translate into any test victory. The E3-1241 v3 does offer a lower TDP of 80 watts versus 105 watts for the E5-4610 v3, which could be a consideration for power-constrained environments, but that is not a performance win.

For use cases, the E5-4610 v3's advantage is broad but narrow. It wins by roughly 1-2% across the board, meaning it is the better choice for any workload that relies on CPU compute, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. The E3-1241 v3's only potential niche would be scenarios where its smaller footprint — fewer cores, lower TDP, dual-channel memory — is preferable for platform-level reasons, not raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every major specification. The E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the E3-1241 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are drastically different: 1.70 GHz for the E5-4610 v3 versus 3.50 GHz for the E3-1241 v3. The E3-1241 v3 also has a 3.90 GHz boost clock; no boost clock is listed for the E5-4610 v3.

TDP differs by 25 watts: 105 watts for the E5-4610 v3, 80 watts for the E3-1241 v3. Sockets are incompatible: the E5-4610 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E3-1241 v3 uses Intel Socket 1150. Memory support also diverges — the E5-4610 v3 supports DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the E3-1241 v3 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Cache and silicon differ substantially. The E5-4610 v3 has 25 MB of shared L3 cache, versus 8 MB for the E3-1241 v3. The E5-4610 v3 has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die; the E3-1241 v3 has 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. PCIe lane counts differ: 40 lanes for the E5-4610 v3 versus 16 for the E3-1241 v3. Both support ECC memory, both lack integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Release dates and MSRPs also differ. The E3-1241 v3 released on 2014-05-10 with a launch MSRP of $273. The E5-4610 v3 released on 2015-05-31 with a launch MSRP of $1219. Part numbers are SR1R4 for the E3-1241 v3 and SR22S for the E5-4610 v3.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on Intel's Haswell architecture and use a 22 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. The codenames differ: Haswell-EP for the E5-4610 v3 and Haswell-WS for the E3-1241 v3. The E5-4610 v3 belongs to the Xeon E5 generation, while the E3-1241 v3 belongs to the Xeon E3 generation.

The fundamental architectural split is in core count and memory hierarchy. The E5-4610 v3 scales to 10 cores with 20 threads and a 25 MB shared L3 cache, indicating a larger, more complex die designed for multi-socket or high-core-count server platforms. The E3-1241 v3 is a smaller 4-core, 8-thread design with 8 MB of shared L3 cache, targeting single-socket workstations.

Memory architecture is a major differentiator. The E5-4610 v3 supports DDR4 over a quad-channel memory bus, doubling the memory bandwidth of the E3-1241 v3 (51.2 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s). The E3-1241 v3 is limited to DDR3 over a dual-channel bus. The E5-4610 v3 also exposes 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, more than double the 16 lanes available on the E3-1241 v3.

The die sizes tell the story of the performance gap: 356 mm² for the E5-4610 v3 versus 160 mm² for the E3-1241 v3. Transistor counts follow suit at 2,600 million versus 1,400 million. Both CPUs are end-of-life products, and both support ECC memory. Neither has integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 is the better-performing CPU. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, including every single-core test despite having a base clock less than half that of the E3-1241 v3. Its 10-core, 20-thread configuration with 25 MB of L3 cache and quad-channel DDR4 memory gives it a consistent 1-2% edge across all Cinebench workloads.

Who should pick the E5-4610 v3? Anyone who needs the maximum CPU compute performance in this comparison. It is the choice for multi-threaded workloads that can exploit 20 threads, and it even holds the advantage in single-threaded tests. Its larger memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s) and 40 PCIe lanes make it the more capable platform for memory-intensive or I/O-heavy server tasks.

Who should pick the E3-1241 v3? The data does not support a performance-based argument for it. It loses every benchmark. Its advantages are purely platform-level: a lower 80-watt TDP versus 105 watts, DDR3 memory support instead of DDR4, a smaller socket (1150 versus 2011-3), and a significantly lower launch MSRP of $273 versus $1219. If the workload is light, power efficiency is paramount, or the platform is already built around Socket 1150, the E3-1241 v3 could be the pragmatic choice. But for raw performance, the E5-4610 v3 is the clear winner.

Both CPUs sit at the 41st percentile among all CPUs and have nearly identical average benchmark scores (1777 versus 1756). The E5-4610 v3's edge is real but modest. In a benchmark database context, this is a close call on paper that the E5-4610 v3 wins on every measurable metric.