Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 and Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 are both end-of-life server processors, but they represent two very different eras of Intel's design philosophy. The E3-1268L v5 is a modern, power-efficient Skylake part built on a 14 nm process, while the E5-1428L v2 is an older Ivy Bridge chip on a 22 nm node with more physical cores. Benchmark data from Cinebench paints a picture of remarkable consistency: the newer chip wins every single test, but by an extremely narrow margin. This comparison is less about dominance and more about the trade-offs between core count, clock speed, and platform features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are striking for their uniformity. Across all six Cinebench tests—spanning R15, R20, and R23—the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 wins every round with an identical deltaPct of 1.3% over the E5-1428L v2. There is no single workload where the older six-core part manages to pull ahead, even in multi-threaded scenarios where its two extra cores (6 vs. 4) and four extra threads (12 vs. 8) would theoretically give it an advantage.

In Cinebench R15, the E3-1268L v5 scores 542 in multicore versus 535 for the E5-1428L v2, and 76 versus 75 in single-core. That 1.3% margin is consistent through R20, where the scores are 2260 versus 2232 in multicore and 319 versus 315 in single-core. The pattern holds in the latest R23 test: 5383 versus 5316 in multicore and 760 versus 750 in single-core. The story is clear—the E3-1268L v5 is faster across the board, but the gap is almost negligible in real-world terms.

The reason for this narrow victory lies in the clock speed advantage. The E3-1268L v5 boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the E5-1428L v2 is limited to 2.70 GHz. That 0.70 GHz delta is enough to overcome the E5-1428L v2's 50% core count advantage in these particular workloads. The data shows that the newer architecture's higher frequency per core is more valuable than the older chip's additional cores, at least within this Cinebench suite. Notably, the E5-1428L v2's average benchmark score of 1537 places it just 1.3% behind the E3-1268L v5's 1557, which aligns perfectly with the head-to-head deltas.

The Verdict

From a pure performance standpoint, the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 is the unambiguous winner in every measured benchmark. The data shows a 1.3% lead in all six tests, making it the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw Cinebench throughput. Its higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz versus 2.70 GHz is the decisive factor, and it achieves this while consuming significantly less power—35W TDP versus 60W TDP for the E5-1428L v2. This combination of higher performance and lower power draw is a compelling argument for the newer part.

However, the E5-1428L v2 is not without its merits. It offers 6 cores and 12 threads, which is a 50% core increase over the E3-1268L v5's 4 cores and 8 threads. While this does not translate into a win in the Cinebench tests, it suggests potential in workloads that scale differently or are more sensitive to core count rather than frequency. The E5-1428L v2 also has a larger L3 cache—15 MB shared versus 8 MB shared—and supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, which could benefit certain memory-intensive tasks. Its launch MSRP was $494, compared to $377 for the E3-1268L v5.

The verdict is straightforward: if you are choosing based on the data presented, the E3-1268L v5 is the superior processor. It wins every benchmark, draws less power, and carries a lower launch MSRP. The E5-1428L v2 is only relevant if your specific application can exploit its additional cores and larger cache, but the evidence here does not support that as a general rule.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results do not show any workload category where the E5-1428L v2 comes out ahead. All six Cinebench tests—both single-core and multi-core variants—favor the E3-1268L v5. The single-core tests are a logical win for the newer chip, given its 3.40 GHz boost clock versus 2.70 GHz. The multi-core tests are more surprising, as the E5-1428L v2's two extra cores should theoretically help, but the E3-1268L v5's per-core efficiency and higher frequency win out.

For the E3-1268L v5, its wins are defined by frequency. The 1.3% lead in every test suggests that it will be faster in any application that is clock-bound or latency-sensitive. The 14 nm process node also contributes to its efficiency, delivering a 35W TDP that is 25W lower than the E5-1428L v2's 60W TDP. This makes it the better choice for dense server deployments where power and heat are primary concerns.

The E5-1428L v2's theoretical advantage lies in its core count and cache. With 6 cores, 12 threads, and 15 MB of L3 cache, it is structurally better equipped for heavily parallel workloads that can use more than 8 threads. The triple-channel memory bus also provides a wider path to system memory, although its peak bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s is actually slightly lower than the E3-1268L v5's 34.1 GB/s dual-channel implementation. The data does not show any test where these advantages manifest, so they remain theoretical rather than demonstrated.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 scores 5383, which is 1.3% higher than the E5-1428L v2's 5316.

Q: Does the E5-1428L v2's extra cores help it win any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having 6 cores versus 4, the E5-1428L v2 loses all six head-to-head tests by the same 1.3% margin.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two CPUs?

A: The E3-1268L v5 has a 35W TDP, while the E5-1428L v2 has a 60W TDP, a difference of 25W.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The E3-1268L v5 boosts to 3.40 GHz, while the E5-1428L v2 boosts to 2.70 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The E3-1268L v5 has an average score of 1557, and the E5-1428L v2 has an average score of 1537, a 1.3% gap.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the E3-1268L v5 and the E5-1428L v2 have ECC memory support.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The E3-1268L v5 uses the Skylake architecture (Skylake-DT) on a 14 nm process, while the E5-1428L v2 uses the older Ivy Bridge architecture (Ivy Bridge-EN) on a 22 nm node. This generational leap explains the E3-1268L v5's efficiency: it delivers higher performance at 35W TDP compared to the E5-1428L v2's 60W TDP. The transistor counts are similar—1,750 million for the Skylake part versus 1,860 million for Ivy Bridge—but the die size tells a different story. The E3-1268L v5 packs its transistors into a 122 mm² die, while the E5-1428L v2 uses a much larger 257 mm² die. The smaller process node allows the newer chip to be physically smaller while maintaining a comparable transistor budget.

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The E3-1268L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The E5-1428L v2 offers 6 cores and 12 threads, with a larger 15 MB shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. Memory support is another differentiator: the E3-1268L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the E5-1428L v2 is limited to DDR3 in a triple-channel layout, offering 32.0 GB/s bandwidth. The E3-1268L v5 also includes integrated HD Graphics P530, whereas the E5-1428L v2 has no integrated graphics.

Platform and connectivity also diverge. The E3-1268L v5 uses Intel Socket 1151 and provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E5-1428L v2 uses the larger Intel Socket 1356 and offers 24 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The E5-1428L v2's additional PCIe lanes and triple-channel memory are aimed at more expandable server platforms, but they come at the cost of a higher 60W TDP. Both chips are end-of-life, with the E3-1268L v5 released in October 2015 and the E5-1428L v2 in January 2014. The percentile rankings reflect their mid-pack status: the E3-1268L v5 sits at the 39th percentile against all CPUs, and the E5-1428L v2 at the 38th percentile.