Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 Comparison

# Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4

Both processors belong to Intel's Broadwell generation, yet they target distinctly different platforms. The E3-1270L v4 is a low-power server/workstation part on Socket 1150, while the E5-1630 v4 is a high-TDP desktop-class Xeon on Socket 2011-3. Despite nearly identical benchmark scores across the board, the platform and architectural differences tell a more nuanced story than the raw Cinebench numbers suggest. The data reveals a curious outcome: the lower-clocked, lower-power chip wins every single benchmark head-to-head, albeit by margins under 1.2%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, covering R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. The E5-1630 v4 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison.

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The E3-1270L v4 has an average benchmark score of 1883, while the E5-1630 v4 scores 1869. This places the E3-1270L v4 in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs, with the E5-1630 v4 just behind at the 42nd percentile.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two Xeon processors?

A: The E3-1270L v4 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the E5-1630 v4 has a TDP of 140 watts. This represents a significant power consumption gap, with the E3-1270L v4 using less than one-third of the power budget of the E5-1630 v4.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 and the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 support ECC memory. However, they use different memory types: the E3-1270L v4 supports DDR3, while the E5-1630 v4 supports DDR4.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the E5-1630 v4?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 has a launch MSRP of $406. The E3-1270L v4 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Q: What is the PCIe lane difference between the two processors?

A: The E3-1270L v4 offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the E5-1630 v4 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). This represents a substantial difference in expansion capability.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unusual situation where the E3-1270L v4 wins every single test, but the magnitude of those wins is remarkably small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1270L v4 scores 656 against 651 for the E5-1630 v4, a delta of just 0.8%. The single-core R15 test shows a 92-to-91 advantage for the E3-1270L v4, representing a 1.1% lead.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern repeats. Multi-core scores are 2735 for the E3-1270L v4 versus 2714 for the E5-1630 v4 (0.8% delta), while single-core scores are 385 versus 383 (0.5% delta). The R23 tests continue the trend with multi-core scores of 6512 against 6464 (0.7% delta) and single-core scores of 919 against 912 (0.8% delta).

However, the E5-1630 v4 wins where benchmarks cannot measure: platform capabilities. Its quad-channel memory bus doubles the memory channels of the E3-1270L v4's dual-channel design. The memory bandwidth figure of 76.8 GB/s for the E5-1630 v4 dwarfs the 29.9 GB/s of the E3-1270L v4. The 40 PCIe lanes versus 16 lanes also gives the E5-1630 v4 a clear advantage for multi-GPU or high-bandwidth storage configurations.

The E3-1270L v4, meanwhile, wins decisively in power efficiency. Its 45-watt TDP versus 140 watts for the E5-1630 v4 means the E3-1270L v4 delivers comparable benchmark performance at roughly one-third of the power envelope. This makes the E3-1270L v4 the practical choice for dense server deployments where power and cooling are constrained.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 14 nm process node and share the Broadwell architecture, but they diverge in their specific implementations. The E3-1270L v4 uses the Broadwell-DT codename, representing a desktop-class die designed for the mainstream platform. The E5-1630 v4 uses the Broadwell-EP codename, which is Intel's enterprise processor line.

The die sizes reflect this difference. The E3-1270L v4 has a die size of 182 mm², while the E5-1630 v4 has a larger 246 mm² die. The E5-1630 v4 also has a transistor count of 3,400 million, while the E3-1270L v4 does not have a listed transistor count in the data. This larger die and higher transistor count for the E5-1630 v4 suggests additional on-die infrastructure, likely related to the more extensive memory controller and PCIe implementation.

Cache configurations also differ. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the L3 cache differs significantly: the E3-1270L v4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-1630 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache. This 4 MB difference in L3 cache could explain why the E5-1630 v4 comes close to matching the E3-1270L v4 despite having a higher clock speed deficit that might otherwise be expected to produce larger performance gaps.

The socket and platform architecture represent the most fundamental difference. The E3-1270L v4 uses Intel Socket 1150 with a dual-channel memory bus, while the E5-1630 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3 with a quad-channel memory bus. This platform separation extends to memory support: DDR3 for the E3-1270L v4 versus DDR4 for the E5-1630 v4.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are identical: both processors feature 4 cores and 8 threads. However, clock speeds differ notably. The E3-1270L v4 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The E5-1630 v4 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz. The E5-1630 v4 therefore runs 700 MHz higher at base and 400 MHz higher at boost.

TDP is the most dramatic specification difference. The E3-1270L v4 consumes 45 watts, while the E5-1630 v4 consumes 140 watts. This 95-watt gap explains why the E3-1270L v4 can achieve similar benchmark scores despite lower clock speeds — it likely sustains boost clocks for longer durations within its power budget.

Memory specifications diverge completely. The E3-1270L v4 supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and 29.9 GB/s bandwidth. The E5-1630 v4 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The E5-1630 v4's memory bandwidth is roughly 2.5 times higher than the E3-1270L v4's.

PCIe capabilities also favor the E5-1630 v4 substantially. The E3-1270L v4 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E5-1630 v4 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and both support ECC memory. The E5-1630 v4 is designated as end-of-life production status, while the E3-1270L v4 has no production status listed. The E5-1630 v4's launch MSRP is $406, with no MSRP listed for the E3-1270L v4.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The complete sweep of Cinebench tests by the E3-1270L v4 is striking, given its substantial clock speed disadvantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1270L v4 scores 656 against the E5-1630 v4's 651, a 0.8% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows the largest margin of any benchmark: 92 versus 91, a 1.1% lead for the E3-1270L v4.

Cinebench R20 results continue the pattern with smaller margins. Multi-core scores stand at 2735 for the E3-1270L v4 and 2714 for the E5-1630 v4, representing a 0.8% delta. The single-core R20 test shows 385 versus 383, a 0.5% difference — the narrowest margin in the entire comparison.

Cinebench R23 multi-core scores are 6512 for the E3-1270L v4 and 6464 for the E5-1630 v4, a 0.7% delta. The R23 single-core test shows 919 versus 912, an 0.8% advantage for the E3-1270L v4. Across all six tests, the E3-1270L v4's margins range from 0.5% to 1.1%, consistently outperforming the E5-1630 v4.

These results are counterintuitive when considering the clock speed advantage of the E5-1630 v4. The E5-1630 v4 boosts to 4.00 GHz, which is 400 MHz higher than the E3-1270L v4's 3.60 GHz boost. Yet the E3-1270L v4 still wins every test. The 45-watt TDP of the E3-1270L v4, combined with its smaller 182 mm² die, likely allows for more sustained all-core boost behavior. The larger 140-watt TDP of the E5-1630 v4 suggests it has headroom, but the benchmark results indicate the E3-1270L v4's power efficiency translates directly into performance consistency.

The nearest rival data reinforces how closely matched these two processors are. The E3-1270L v4's closest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 (average score 1882, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Xeon D-1531 (average score 1885, delta -0.1%). The E5-1630 v4's closest rivals include the Intel Core i3-9350K (average score 1867, delta 0.1%) and the Intel Core i5-1035G4 (average score 1861, delta 0.4%). Both processors sit in a crowded performance band where 0.5% differences separate adjacent competitors.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear performance picture: the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 wins all six benchmark comparisons, yet the margins are so small (0.5% to 1.1%) that real-world application performance would likely be indistinguishable between the two. The E3-1270L v4's achievement is impressive — it delivers higher benchmark scores than a processor with 700 MHz higher base clock and 400 MHz higher boost clock, while consuming just 45 watts versus 140 watts.

The choice between these processors ultimately depends on platform requirements rather than raw performance. The E3-1270L v4 is the logical selection for systems built around Socket 1150 with DDR3 memory, particularly where power efficiency is paramount. Its 45-watt TDP makes it suitable for dense server environments where thermal management is a priority. The benchmark results confirm that no performance penalty is incurred for choosing the more efficient option.

The E5-1630 v4 makes sense for platforms requiring Socket 2011-3 with DDR4 memory and extensive PCIe expansion. The 40 PCIe lanes and 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth are the real advantages here — capabilities that no benchmark in the Cinebench suite measures. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive or require multiple high-speed devices, the E5-1630 v4's platform features outweigh its slight benchmark deficit.

Given that the E5-1630 v4 has a launch MSRP of $406 and is marked as end-of-life, while the E3-1270L v4 has no listed MSRP or production status, the comparison is less about which chip is better and more about which platform fits the use case. The data shows two processors with equivalent compute performance but vastly different platform philosophies: one optimized for efficiency and compact deployments, the other for expansion and memory throughput. The benchmark scores say they are equal; the platform specifications say they are not interchangeable.