Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 vs Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 and Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 are two low-power server processors that, despite coming from different architectural generations and physical sockets, produce nearly identical benchmark scores. Based on the data, the E3-1270L v4 edges out its newer rival in every single head-to-head test, though the margins are razor-thin. Both processors post an average benchmark score around 1882-1883, placing them at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs, which indicates they are firmly mid-pack performers in the broader market. The E3-1270L v4 achieves a 0.1% higher average score (1883 vs. 1882), a statistical tie that tells a story of two chips separated by design philosophy rather than raw capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a consistent, albeit marginal, victory for the E3-1270L v4 across all six Cinebench tests. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the E3-1270L v4 scores 656 against 655 for the E3-1558L v5, a 0.2% difference. The single-core R15 test is a dead heat, with both chips scoring 92. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore score favors the E3-1270L v4 at 2735 versus 2733, a 0.1% lead, while single-core scores are identical at 385. The most recent Cinebench R23 test shows the same pattern: the E3-1270L v4 wins multicore with 6512 against 6508 (0.1% delta) and single-core with 919 against 918 (0.1% delta).

The win tally is lopsided on paper — 6 wins for the E3-1270L v4 and 0 for the E3-1558L v5 — but the practical significance is negligible. A 0.1% or 0.2% performance delta in synthetic rendering benchmarks is within the noise of any real-world workload. The E3-1558L v5’s closest rival in its own nearestRivals list is the Intel Processor U300, with a score of 1881 and a 0.1% delta, while the E3-1270L v4 sits just above it. Notably, the E3-1558L v5’s nearestRivals list places the E3-1270L v4 as its direct competitor with a -0.1% delta, confirming that these two occupy the same performance tier. The data indicates that if a workload is bound by Cinebench-style rendering, neither processor offers a meaningful advantage over the other.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is significant even if the performance is not. The E3-1270L v4 is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-DT codename, while the E3-1558L v5 uses the newer Skylake architecture with the Skylake-H codename. Both are fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm process node, but the Skylake part integrates 2,300 million transistors on a 171 mm² die, whereas the Broadwell part lists a die size of 182 mm² without a transistor count. The Skylake chip’s smaller die with a higher transistor density reflects the architectural refresh.

Cache configuration differs notably. The E3-1270L v4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E3-1558L v5 offers 8 MB of shared L3 cache — a 33% capacity increase. Both maintain identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) caches. The extra L3 cache on the Skylake part does not translate into benchmark wins, which suggests that the workload tested does not heavily benefit from additional cache capacity. Memory support also diverges: the E3-1270L v4 supports only DDR3, while the E3-1558L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The E3-1558L v5 also has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s compared to 29.9 GB/s for the E3-1270L v4. Both are dual-channel designs with ECC support.

The most visible feature difference is integrated graphics. The E3-1270L v4 has no integrated GPU listed, while the E3-1558L v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P555. This makes the E3-1558L v5 a more self-contained option for systems requiring display output without a discrete GPU. Socket compatibility is another major divider: the E3-1270L v4 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the E3-1558L v5 is a BGA 1440 solder-down part. This means the E3-1270L v4 is socketed and replaceable, whereas the E3-1558L v5 is permanently attached to the motherboard. The E3-1558L v5 is marked as end-of-life, while the E3-1270L v4 has no production status listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 wins all three multi-core tests, but by fractions of a percent: 656 vs. 655 in Cinebench R15, 2735 vs. 2733 in R20, and 6512 vs. 6508 in R23.

Q: Do the two chips have identical single-core performance?

A: The single-core results are effectively identical. In Cinebench R15 and R20, both score 92 and 385 respectively, with a 0% delta. In R23, the E3-1270L v4 leads 919 to 918, a 0.1% difference.

Q: What is the main advantage of the E3-1558L v5 over the E3-1270L v4?

A: The E3-1558L v5 offers a larger 8 MB shared L3 cache versus 6 MB, supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory (the E3-1270L v4 is DDR3-only), has higher memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s, and includes Iris Pro Graphics P555 integrated graphics, which the E3-1270L v4 lacks.

Q: Can the E3-1270L v4 be upgraded or replaced in a system?

A: Yes, the E3-1270L v4 uses Intel Socket 1150, a standard socketed interface. The E3-1558L v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, which is a soldered, non-replaceable package.

Q: How do these processors compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: Both sit at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. The E3-1270L v4 has an average score of 1883, while the E3-1558L v5 averages 1882. Their nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-1531 (1885), Intel Processor U300 (1881), and Intel Core i7-4940MX (1886).

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The E3-1270L v4 boosts to 3.60 GHz, while the E3-1558L v5 boosts to 3.30 GHz. The base clocks are also different: 3.00 GHz for the E3-1270L v4 and 1.90 GHz for the E3-1558L v5.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The E3-1270L v4 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the E3-1558L v5 has a base clock of 1.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The socket types are incompatible: Intel Socket 1150 for the E3-1270L v4 versus Intel BGA 1440 for the E3-1558L v5. The architecture and codename differ (Broadwell-DT vs. Skylake-H), as does the transistor count (the E3-1558L v5 lists 2,300 million transistors; the E3-1270L v4 lists none) and die size (182 mm² vs. 171 mm²). L3 cache is 6 MB on the E3-1270L v4 versus 8 MB on the E3-1558L v5. Memory support is DDR3-only for the E3-1270L v4 versus DDR3 and DDR4 for the E3-1558L v5, with corresponding memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s and 34.1 GB/s. The E3-1558L v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P555, while the E3-1270L v4 has no integrated graphics listed. Release dates differ, with the E3-1270L v4 launching on 2015-06-01 and the E3-1558L v5 on 2016-05-30. The E3-1558L v5 has a launch MSRP of $396 and is marked end-of-life, while the E3-1270L v4 has no MSRP or production status listed. Part numbers are SR2AZ for the E3-1270L v4 and SR2TU for the E3-1558L v5.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 is the better performer, winning all six head-to-head tests. However, the margins are so small — a maximum of 0.2% — that the choice should not be based on performance. The E3-1270L v4 offers a higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs. 1.90 GHz) and higher boost clock (3.60 GHz vs. 3.30 GHz), which may help in bursty single-threaded tasks, but the E3-1558L v5 counters with a larger L3 cache (8 MB vs. 6 MB), broader memory support (DDR3 and DDR4 vs. DDR3-only), higher memory bandwidth (34.1 GB/s vs. 29.9 GB/s), and integrated graphics. The E3-1558L v5 is also a newer design (Skylake vs. Broadwell) with a smaller die. The data suggests that for a system builder, the E3-1270L v4 is the pick for socketed upgradeability and marginally higher clock speeds, while the E3-1558L v5 is the pick for a compact, soldered design with integrated graphics and newer memory technology. The E3-1558L v5’s end-of-life status is a caveat, but its launch MSRP of $396 provides a reference point for its original market positioning.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1270L v4 wins in every measured benchmark category, so it is the default choice for raw synthetic rendering performance. Its higher base and boost clocks suggest it will also sustain better performance in lightly threaded applications that do not scale with cache size. The E3-1270L v4 is the only option for users who need a socketed processor on Intel Socket 1150, allowing for future CPU swaps. It is also the only choice for systems that exclusively use DDR3 memory and do not require integrated graphics.

The E3-1558L v5 wins in system integration features. It includes Iris Pro Graphics P555, enabling display output without a discrete GPU — a capability the E3-1270L v4 entirely lacks. Its support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory gives platform designers flexibility, and its higher memory bandwidth (34.1 GB/s) benefits memory-intensive workloads that are not captured by the Cinebench suite. The 8 MB L3 cache, while not producing a benchmark win, provides a larger pool for data reuse in server workloads. The BGA 1440 package, while non-serviceable, allows for thinner, lower-profile designs. For a system where the CPU is soldered at the factory and the platform is built around Skylake-H, the E3-1558L v5 is the appropriate part. In short, the E3-1270L v4 is the benchmark winner, but the E3-1558L v5 is the feature-rich alternative for integrated and memory-flexible designs.