Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2043, while the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 scores 2029. That puts the E3-1275 v5 roughly 0.7% ahead in average terms, a small but consistent margin across all recorded tests.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speeds?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 runs at a base clock of 3.60 GHz and boosts to 4.00 GHz. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 is lower on both counts: 2.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. The E3-1275 v5 holds a 0.70 GHz advantage at base and a 0.10 GHz advantage at boost.

Q: Are these processors the same architecture?

A: Yes. Both are built on Intel's Skylake-DT architecture, use a 14 nm process node, and pack 1,750 million transistors on a 122 mm² die. They also share the same Intel Socket 1151, dual-channel memory bus, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The E3-1275 v5 has a thermal design power (TDP) of 80 watts, while the E3-1260L v5 is rated at just 45 watts. The E3-1260L v5 is the lower-power part by a 35-watt margin, which reflects its lower clock speeds.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 includes integrated graphics, specifically HD Graphics P530. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for that chip.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the E3-1275 v5 and the E3-1260L v5 support ECC memory and are compatible with both DDR3 and DDR4 modules over a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth.

Q: What was the launch MSRP of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 had a launch MSRP of $350. The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 had a lower launch MSRP of $294.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the same Skylake-DT generation and share the fundamental silicon. Each has 4 cores and 8 threads, built on Intel's 14 nm process node at Intel's own foundry. The transistor count is identical at 1,750 million, and the die size matches at 122 mm². Cache hierarchy is also the same: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3.

The architectural split comes down to power and clock behavior. The E3-1275 v5 is configured for higher sustained and peak clocks, with a 3.60 GHz base and 4.00 GHz boost, at an 80-watt TDP. The E3-1260L v5 is a low-power variant, with a 2.90 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, at a 45-watt TDP. Both are locked parts, so the multiplier cannot be adjusted on either chip.

The other notable difference is integrated graphics. The E3-1275 v5 carries HD Graphics P530, while the E3-1260L v5 has no integrated GPU. This is a meaningful distinction for system design: the E3-1260L v5 requires a dedicated graphics card for any display output, whereas the E3-1275 v5 can drive a display on its own.

Both chips support the same memory types (DDR3, DDR4) over dual-channel memory buses, with identical 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, making either suitable for workstation or server workloads where data integrity matters. Both are end-of-life products, released on the same date, and both are listed with the same PCIe configuration: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a consistent, if modest, victory for the E3-1275 v5 in every single benchmark test. Across six Cinebench runs, the E3-1275 v5 wins all six, with delta percentages ranging from 0.7% to 1.0%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1275 v5 scores 712 against the E3-1260L v5's 707, a 0.7% lead. The single-core R15 result is 100 versus 99, a 1% advantage for the E3-1275 v5. That 1% delta is the largest single margin in the entire head-to-head table.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the E3-1275 v5 posts 2967 multi-core and 418 single-core. The E3-1260L v5 manages 2946 multi-core and 415 single-core. Both deltas sit at 0.7%. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: the E3-1275 v5 scores 7065 multi-core and 997 single-core, while the E3-1260L v5 scores 7015 multi-core and 990 single-core, again a 0.7% margin in both tests.

The data points to a predictable outcome: the E3-1275 v5's higher clocks, especially the 0.70 GHz base clock advantage, translate into slightly better performance across the board. However, the magnitude of the win is small. A 0.7% to 1.0% difference in synthetic rendering benchmarks is unlikely to be noticeable in day-to-day workloads, though it does mean the E3-1275 v5 is strictly faster in every measured scenario.

It is worth remembering the E3-1260L v5 trails by a smaller percentage than its clock deficit might suggest. The boost clocks are only 0.10 GHz apart, and modern workloads often spend time in boost states, which narrows the gap. The base clock difference matters most under sustained all-core loads, but even there, the E3-1260L v5's 45-watt TDP allows it to hold decent frequencies.

Specification Differences

The two processors share most of their specification sheet. The differences are concentrated in a few key fields:

• Base Clock: 3.60 GHz on the E3-1275 v5 versus 2.90 GHz on the E3-1260L v5
• Boost Clock: 4.00 GHz on the E3-1275 v5 versus 3.90 GHz on the E3-1260L v5
• TDP: 80 watts on the E3-1275 v5 versus 45 watts on the E3-1260L v5
• Integrated Graphics: HD Graphics P530 on the E3-1275 v5, none on the E3-1260L v5
• Launch MSRP: $350 on the E3-1275 v5 versus $294 on the E3-1260L v5
• Part Number: SR2LKSR2CT on the E3-1275 v5 versus SR2LH on the E3-1260L v5

Everything else is identical: 4 cores, 8 threads, 14 nm process node, 1,750 million transistors, 122 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 8 MB shared L3, DDR3/DDR4 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, Intel Socket 1151, and the same release date. Both are end-of-life server/workstation parts with locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1275 v5 wins every recorded benchmark. Its strongest advantage is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by 1%, and it holds a 0.7% edge in all other tests. For anyone running single-threaded workloads that are sensitive to raw clock speed, the E3-1275 v5's 4.00 GHz boost clock and 3.60 GHz base clock give it a clear, if small, edge. It also carries integrated graphics, which means a system built around it can operate without a discrete GPU, a useful option for basic display output or troubleshooting.

The E3-1260L v5 wins in efficiency, not performance. Its 45-watt TDP is 35 watts lower than the E3-1275 v5's 80-watt rating, making it the better choice for compact, thermally constrained, or always-on systems where power draw and heat output are priorities. The performance penalty is small: roughly 0.7% across most tests. In exchange, the E3-1260L v5 offers substantially lower power consumption, which can matter in dense server environments or in systems with limited cooling.

The E3-1260L v5 also had a lower launch MSRP of $294, compared to $350 for the E3-1275 v5. For a workload that is not performance-critical, the E3-1260L v5 delivers nearly the same results while consuming less power and costing less at launch.

The Verdict

The data makes the choice straightforward for pure performance: the Intel Xeon E3-1275 v5 is the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with a 0.7% to 1.0% lead depending on the test. Its higher base and boost clocks, 3.60 GHz and 4.00 GHz respectively, drive that advantage. It also includes HD Graphics P530, which the E3-1260L v5 lacks, making it the more self-sufficient part for systems without a discrete GPU.

The Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 is the pick when power efficiency takes priority over raw speed. At 45 watts versus 80 watts, it uses significantly less power while staying within about 0.7% of the E3-1275 v5 in most benchmarks. Its 2.90 GHz base clock and 3.90 GHz boost clock are lower, but the real-world performance gap is small. For a server room with tight power budgets, a small-form-factor build with limited cooling, or any scenario where heat and electricity matter more than a few percentage points of rendering performance, the E3-1260L v5 is the sensible choice.

For everyone else, the E3-1275 v5 is the safer recommendation. It matches the E3-1260L v5 on architecture, cores, cache, and memory support, then adds faster clocks and integrated graphics. The performance advantage is not large, but it is consistent across every test in the database. There is no benchmark in the recorded data where the E3-1260L v5 comes out ahead, so the E3-1275 v5 is the correct pick for maximum throughput.