Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 are two server/workstation processors that, on paper, could not be more different in their design philosophies. The former is a high-power Haswell-EP part built for a quad-channel workstation platform, while the latter is a low-power Broadwell-DT chip with integrated graphics. Yet, the benchmark data shows an extraordinary outcome: in every single Cinebench test, both processors produce identical scores. The E5-1620 v3 and E3-1265L v4 both achieve an average benchmark score of 1709, placing them at the 40th percentile of all CPUs. Their closest rival, the Intel Core i7-990X, scores 1713, a mere 0.2% difference, indicating that these two Xeons are effectively performance twins in the tested workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: Both the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 have identical average benchmark scores of 1709. The data shows no performance separation between them in this metric.

Q: Are these processors competitive with other CPUs in their class?

A: Yes. Both Xeons sit at the 40th percentile of all CPUs. Their nearest rival, the Intel Core i7-990X, scores 1713, which is only 0.2% higher. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U and Intel Core i7-4910MQ also score closely at 1715 and 1716, respectively (0.4% higher).

Q: Which processor wins in the head-to-head Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The head-to-head data records the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 as the winner, but the actual scores are identical. Both chips score 5910 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, resulting in a deltaPct of 0.

Q: Do the processors have different power consumption characteristics?

A: Yes, the thermal design power (TDP) is a major differentiator. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has a TDP of 140, while the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 has a TDP of 35. This represents a significant difference in thermal and power profiles.

Q: What kind of memory support does each processor offer?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports DDR4 memory via a quad-channel bus with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 supports DDR3 memory via a dual-channel bus with a bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it features the Intel Iris Pro P6300. In contrast, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is substantial. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture (codename Haswell-EP) using a 22 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 uses the Broadwell architecture (codename Broadwell-DT) on a more advanced 14 nm process node. Its die size is considerably smaller at 182 mm², and its transistor count is not listed in the data.

These architectural choices lead to major platform differences. The E5-1620 v3 is designed for the Intel Socket 2011-3, a high-end platform that supports quad-channel DDR4 memory. The E3-1265L v4 uses the Intel Socket 1150, which is a mainstream platform limited to dual-channel DDR3 memory. This has a direct impact on memory bandwidth, with the E5-1620 v3 offering 68.3 GB/s compared to the E3-1265L v4's 29.9 GB/s. PCIe lane availability also differs significantly: the E5-1620 v3 provides 40 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the E3-1265L v4 only offers 16 Gen 3 lanes.

The cache hierarchies are also different. Both have the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) caches, but the shared L3 cache is larger on the E5-1620 v3 at 10 MB, versus 6 MB on the E3-1265L v4. The E3-1265L v4 compensates for its smaller cache and lower clocks with the inclusion of the Intel Iris Pro P6300 integrated graphics, a feature entirely absent from the E5-1620 v3. The power envelope is the most striking difference: the E5-1620 v3 has a TDP of 140, while the E3-1265L v4 sips power at just 35.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show a perfect statistical tie across all six Cinebench tests, so traditional performance-based wins do not apply here. Instead, the strengths of each processor are defined by their platform characteristics. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins in scenarios requiring high memory bandwidth and extensive I/O. Its quad-channel DDR4 support with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it the superior choice for memory-intensive workstation tasks, such as large dataset manipulation or multi-GPU compute setups. The larger 10 MB L3 cache also provides a structural advantage for workloads with high cache locality.

The Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 wins in power-constrained and space-constrained environments. Its 35 TDP is a fraction of the E5-1620 v3's 140 TDP, making it suitable for dense, passively cooled servers or systems where thermal management is a priority. The integrated Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics means it can drive displays without a discrete GPU, which is a decisive advantage for compact or embedded systems. Its smaller 182 mm² die and more efficient 14 nm process further support its role in low-power deployments. The dual-channel DDR3 memory and 16 PCIe lanes are sufficient for lighter server workloads, such as web serving or network attached storage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every fundamental specification except for core and thread counts, which are both 4 cores and 8 threads. The most glaring difference is TDP: the E5-1620 v3 is rated at 140, while the E3-1265L v4 is rated at 35. Clock speeds diverge as well, with the E5-1620 v3 having a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The E3-1265L v4 has a lower base clock of 2.30 GHz but a closer boost clock of 3.30 GHz.

The memory subsystems are entirely different. The E5-1620 v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the E3-1265L v4 uses dual-channel DDR3 with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. This is accompanied by different sockets: LGA 2011-3 for the former and LGA 1150 for the latter. PCIe lane counts also differ, with the E5-1620 v3 offering 40 lanes versus 16 for the E3-1265L v4. The process node and die size are distinct: 22 nm and 356 mm² for the E5-1620 v3, versus 14 nm and 182 mm² for the E3-1265L v4. The L3 cache is 10 MB on the E5-1620 v3 and 6 MB on the E3-1265L v4. Finally, integrated graphics are present only on the E3-1265L v4 as the Intel Iris Pro P6300. The E3-1265L v4 also has a launch MSRP of $417, while the E5-1620 v3 has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data presents a remarkable anomaly: every single test ends in a tie. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is nominally recorded as the winner in all six tests, but the deltaPct is 0 in every case, meaning the scores are identical. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score 595. In Cinebench R15 single-core, both score 84. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 2482 for both, and the single-core score is 350 for both. Finally, in Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 5910 for both, and the single-core score is 834 for both.

These results are striking because the underlying hardware is so different. The E5-1620 v3 has a 1.20 GHz higher base clock and a 0.30 GHz higher boost clock than the E3-1265L v4. It also has a larger 10 MB L3 cache and vastly superior memory bandwidth. Yet, the E3-1265L v4 compensates entirely through its more efficient 14 nm Broadwell architecture, which likely allows it to sustain higher effective instructions-per-clock than the older 22 nm Haswell design. The lower power consumption of the E3-1265L v4 does not hamper its compute throughput in these Cinebench workloads.

The practical implication is that for CPU-bound rendering tasks as measured by Cinebench, the platform advantages of the E5-1620 v3—quad-channel memory and extra PCIe lanes—do not translate into higher scores. The core count, thread count, and the software's scaling characteristics are identical, resulting in a perfect performance parity. The data suggests that a system builder should base their choice on platform needs (memory bandwidth, I/O, graphics) rather than raw CPU performance, as the benchmark results indicate these two processors are equivalent in that regard. The 40th percentile ranking for both, against rivals like the Core i7-990X at 1713, further confirms that they occupy the same performance tier in the broader CPU landscape.