Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 vs Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 across all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are remarkably narrow. In every workload, the E3-1285 v4 finishes ahead by a margin between 1.1% and 1.6%. This is not a dominant victory; it is a consistent but modest edge.

The largest single-core lead appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the E3-1285 v4 scores 391 against the E3-1270L v4’s 385, a delta of 1.6%. That is the biggest percentage gap in the entire head-to-head table. The other single-core tests show smaller gaps: Cinebench R15 single-core is 93 versus 92 (1.1%), and Cinebench R23 single-core is 931 versus 919 (1.3%).

Multi-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 multi-core gives the E3-1285 v4 a 2770 score against 2735 for the E3-1270L v4, a 1.3% delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 6596 vs 6512, again 1.3%. Cinebench R15 multi-core is the tightest multi-core race: 664 vs 656, a 1.2% difference. Notably, the E3-1285 v4 wins all 6 head-to-head tests, while the E3-1270L v4 wins none.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The E3-1285 v4 sits at an average of 1908, while the E3-1270L v4 averages 1883. That translates to a 25-point gap, which is roughly 1.3% overall. Both processors land at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database, meaning they are not outliers; they sit squarely in the mid-range of recorded results. The nearest rivals for the E3-1285 v4 include the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 (1907, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910, -0.1%), so the E3-1285 v4 is effectively tied with those parts. The E3-1270L v4’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 (1882, 0.1%) and the Intel Xeon D-1531 (1885, -0.1%), again a very tight cluster.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1285 v4 wins all six benchmark tests, but the margins are so small that the practical difference in everyday workloads is likely minimal. The data suggests that for any single-threaded task, the E3-1285 v4 has a slight edge, particularly in Cinebench R20 single-core where the 1.6% delta is the largest recorded. For multi-threaded rendering or encoding, the E3-1285 v4 also leads, with consistent 1.2% to 1.3% advantages across R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests.

The E3-1270L v4, despite losing every test, still delivers scores that are within 1.3% of the winner in most cases. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the gap is only 84 points (6596 vs 6512), which is a 1.3% difference. That means the E3-1270L v4 is not a weak performer, it is simply a slightly slower variant of the same architecture. The real story is not which one wins, but how close they are.

The use-case split therefore comes down to power and thermal constraints, not raw performance. The E3-1285 v4 is the better pick for anyone who wants the highest possible scores in the database, even if that advantage is measured in single-digit percentages. The E3-1270L v4, with its lower TDP (45 vs 95 for the E3-1285 v4), would be the logical choice for a system where heat output and power draw are the primary concerns, because the performance sacrifice is minimal. For a workload that is heavily multi-threaded and runs for hours, the 1.3% difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core might not be worth the extra thermal overhead. For a bursty single-threaded workload, the E3-1285 v4’s small edge in R20 single-core (1.6%) might be the deciding factor.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture. They are both Broadwell-DT parts on the same 14 nm process, built by Intel, on Intel Socket 1150. The die size is identical at 182 mm². They have the same core and thread count: 4 cores and 8 threads. Cache configuration is also identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3.

The differences appear in clock speeds and power. The E3-1285 v4 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The E3-1270L v4 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. That 0.50 GHz gap in base clock and 0.20 GHz gap in boost clock explains the small benchmark deltas. Additionally, the TDP is dramatically different: 95 watts for the E3-1285 v4 versus 45 watts for the E3-1270L v4. The “L” in the latter’s name clearly denotes a low-power variant.

Another key difference is the integrated graphics. The E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300, while the E3-1270L v4 has no integrated graphics at all. This is a significant feature gap, especially for a system that might rely on the CPU’s GPU for display output or for some acceleration workloads. Memory support is identical: DDR3, dual-channel, with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, and both support ECC memory. PCIe is also the same: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither has a multplier unlocked. The E3-1285 v4 has a launch MSRP of $556, while the E3-1270L v4 has no listed MSRP.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 scores 6596, while the E3-1270L v4 scores 6512. The E3-1285 v4 wins by 1.3%.

Q: What is the biggest benchmark gap between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the E3-1285 v4 scores 391 versus 385 for the E3-1270L v4, a 1.6% difference.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The E3-1285 v4 has a TDP of 95 watts, while the E3-1270L v4 has a TDP of 45 watts.

Q: Does the E3-1270L v4 have integrated graphics?

A: No, the E3-1270L v4 has no integrated graphics. The E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300.

Q: What is the memory and PCIe support for both?

A: Both support DDR3, dual-channel memory with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, ECC, and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: the E3-1285 v4 is the more capable processor in every measured metric, but only by a very slim margin. If the goal is to achieve the highest possible Cinebench scores, the E3-1285 v4 is the pick. Its 6-0 record across the head-to-head tests, with a typical 1.2% to 1.6% advantage, means it will always finish first, but it will not feel significantly faster.

The E3-1270L v4, however, is not far behind. Its 45-watt TDP compared to 95 watts for the E3-1285 v4 makes it a far more efficient part for dense server environments or constrained power budgets. For a workload where the CPU is running at full load for long periods, the 1.3% performance loss in Cinebench R23 multi-core is a small price for halving the power draw. The E3-1270L v4 also lacks integrated graphics, which could be a negative for any system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU.

The choice comes down to priorities. If the system must be quiet, cool, and power-efficient, the E3-1270L v4 is the better fit, and the benchmark results show that the performance penalty is minimal. If the absolute top score is the only metric that matters, the E3-1285 v4 wins, and it also brings the Iris Pro P6300 integrated graphics as a bonus. For server workloads that rely on ECC memory and PCIe lanes, both are equally capable. The data does not reveal a scenario where the E3-1270L v4 is the faster part, but it does reveal that the E3-1285 v4’s speed advantage is more of a token lead than a transformative one.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 | Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 |

|----------------|-----------------------|------------------------|

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 95 W | 45 W |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel Iris Pro P6300 | None |

| Launch MSRP | $556 | None |

| Part Number | SR2CX | SR2AZ |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Not listed |

All other key specifications are identical: 4 cores, 8 threads, 14 nm process, Broadwell-DT architecture, 182 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 6 MB shared L3, DDR3 memory support, dual-channel memory bus, 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, Socket 1150, and no unlocked multiplier.