Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 is the clear performance pick between these two Skylake-DT server processors. The recorded data shows it wins every single head-to-head benchmark, from Cinebench R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. The margins are small, ranging from 0.8% to 1%, but they are consistent across every workload. If you need the absolute maximum compute throughput from this platform, the E3-1270 v5 is the one to select.

The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 is the efficiency-oriented alternative. Its 45 TDP versus 80 TDP for the E3-1270 v5 makes it the choice for power-constrained environments, dense server chassis, or any build where heat dissipation matters more than a few percentage points of performance. The benchmark data indicates the performance gap is modest, so the E3-1260L v5 sacrifices little for its much lower thermal envelope.

For builders prioritizing raw benchmark scores, the E3-1270 v5 wins outright. For those prioritizing operational efficiency and lower thermal output, the E3-1260L v5 offers a compelling trade-off. Both processors share the same core and thread counts, so the decision comes down to clock speed versus power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speeds?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 runs at a 3.60 GHz base clock and 4.00 GHz boost clock. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 runs at a 2.90 GHz base clock and 3.90 GHz boost clock. The E3-1270 v5 is faster in both metrics.

Q: How much power does each processor draw?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 has a TDP of 80, while the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has a TDP of 45. The E3-1260L v5 consumes significantly less power.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the E3-1270 v5 scores 7082 versus 7015 for the E3-1260L v5, a delta of 1%. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the E3-1270 v5 scores 2974 versus 2946, also a 1% lead.

Q: What is the performance difference in single-core workloads?

A: The E3-1270 v5 leads by 1% in both Cinebench R20 single-core (419 versus 415) and Cinebench R15 single-core (100 versus 99). In Cinebench R23 single-core, the E3-1270 v5 scores 999 versus 990, a 0.9% lead.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 and the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 support ECC memory. Both also support DDR3 and DDR4 memory types with dual-channel memory buses.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No, both are marked as end-of-life production status. They were released on the same date, 2015-10-18.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Skylake microarchitecture, specifically the Skylake-DT codename. They share the same 14 nm process node, manufactured by Intel. The transistor count is identical at 1,750 million, and the die size is the same at 122 mm². Both use the Intel Socket 1151.

The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support dual-channel memory with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, and both accept DDR3 and DDR4 modules. ECC memory is enabled on both parts, which is typical for the Xeon E3 server/workstation market segment.

Both processors provide PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither has integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for any display output. Both are also multiplier-unlocked: false, meaning they cannot be overclocked via the multiplier. The part numbers differ: SR2LF for the E3-1270 v5 and SR2LH for the E3-1260L v5.

The only architectural distinction that matters is the clock speed configuration, which is not a structural difference but a binning difference. The E3-1270 v5 is clocked higher in both base and boost states, while the E3-1260L v5 is tuned for lower power consumption.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge in only a few specification fields. The clock speeds are the most obvious difference. The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. That is a 0.70 GHz gap at base and a 0.10 GHz gap at boost.

The TDP is the second major difference. The E3-1270 v5 is rated at 80, while the E3-1260L v5 is rated at 45. This 35-point gap in TDP is what separates the two in terms of thermal design and power delivery requirements.

The launch MSRP also differs: the E3-1270 v5 launched at $339, while the E3-1260L v5 launched at $294.

All other specifications are identical: 4 cores, 8 threads, 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, dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 memory support, 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, no integrated graphics, and end-of-life production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5. It wins all six recorded benchmark comparisons, though the margins are narrow.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1270 v5 scores 713 against 707 for the E3-1260L v5, a delta of 0.8%. The single-core R15 test shows 100 versus 99, a 1% lead. These are the smallest absolute differences in the dataset, but they still favor the E3-1270 v5.

Cinebench R20 shows a consistent 1% advantage for the E3-1270 v5 in both multi-core (2974 versus 2946) and single-core (419 versus 415). The multi-core R20 gap of 28 points is the largest numerical difference among the multicore tests.

Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern. Multi-core scores are 7082 for the E3-1270 v5 and 7015 for the E3-1260L v5, a 1% delta. Single-core scores are 999 versus 990, a 0.9% delta. The R23 multi-core gap of 67 points is the largest single delta in the entire comparison.

The average benchmark score data reinforces this. The E3-1270 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2048, while the E3-1260L v5 averages 2029. The E3-1270 v5 also ranks slightly higher in percentile versus all CPUs at 46, compared to 45 for the E3-1260L v5.

Nearest rival comparisons place the E3-1270 v5 alongside the Intel Core i7-7820HK at a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen 5 7520U at a 0.1% delta, and the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 at a 0.2% delta. The E3-1260L v5 sits near the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 at 0% delta, the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 at -0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-5775R at -0.1%. These rival deltas confirm both processors perform in the same general tier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 wins every performance benchmark in the database. It is the faster chip for any compute-bound task, including rendering, compilation, or heavy multi-threaded server workloads. The 1% multi-core advantage in Cinebench R20 and R23 translates to a measurable, if small, edge in sustained throughput. The single-core wins of 1% (and 0.9% in R23) also give it a slight edge in lightly threaded applications and responsiveness. For users who want the highest possible scores on this platform, the E3-1270 v5 is the unambiguous choice.

The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 wins the efficiency comparison, and that is its primary selling point. Its 45 TDP is nearly half that of the E3-1270 v5's 80 TDP. In a server chassis with limited cooling or in a power-sensitive deployment, that difference can be decisive. The performance cost for that efficiency is minimal: the largest recorded deficit is 1% in multi-core R20 and R23, and 0.9% in single-core R23. The E3-1260L v5 also launched at a lower MSRP of $294, making it the less expensive entry point at launch.

In practice, the choice is straightforward. If your server room has the thermal headroom and you want the top benchmark numbers, take the E3-1270 v5. If you are building a low-power workstation or populating a dense chassis where every watt counts, the E3-1260L v5 delivers nearly identical performance at a much lower power draw. Both are end-of-life parts now, but within their intended market segments, each serves a distinct role. The data does not show a bad choice here, only a trade-off between 1% performance and 35 points of TDP.