Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 vs Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 has a base clock of 1900.00 MHz (1.90 GHz). The E3-1285 v4 is substantially faster in this metric.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core rendering performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the E3-1285 v4 scores 6596, while the E3-1558L v5 scores 6508. The E3-1285 v4 leads by 1.4%. Similar margins appear in R15 (664 vs 655) and R20 (2770 vs 2733), both also 1.4% ahead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 support ECC memory, making them suitable for server and workstation workloads where data integrity is critical.

Q: What are the memory type differences between the two?

A: The E3-1285 v4 supports only DDR3 memory, while the E3-1558L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The E3-1558L v5 also has a higher memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s compared to 29.9 GB/s for the E3-1285 v4.

Q: Which chip has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The E3-1558L v5 offers 33% more L3 cache capacity.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The E3-1285 v4 has an average benchmark score of 1908, placing it roughly equal to the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 (1907, 0% delta) and AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910, -0.1% delta). The E3-1558L v5 averages 1882, sitting near the Intel Processor U300 (1881, 0.1% delta) and Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 (1883, -0.1% delta).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different microarchitectures despite sharing the same 14 nm process node from Intel. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 is built on Broadwell-DT, representing Intel's fifth-generation Core architecture, while the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 uses Skylake-H, a later sixth-generation design. This generational gap explains several underlying differences in how the chips are constructed and what features they bring.

One of the most striking differences is the transistor count. The E3-1558L v5 integrates 2,300 million transistors on a die size of 171 mm², while the E3-1285 v4 has a die size of 182 mm² but no transistor count is recorded in the database. Despite the larger physical die, the Broadwell design appears to pack less logic per area than the Skylake part.

Cache hierarchy reveals another architectural divergence. Both chips share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations, but the L3 cache differs significantly: the E3-1285 v4 has 6 MB shared, while the E3-1558L v5 has 8 MB shared. This larger last-level cache on the Skylake part could benefit workloads with larger working sets, though the benchmark results tell a more nuanced story.

The integrated graphics also differ. The E3-1285 v4 sports Intel Iris Pro P6300, while the E3-1558L v5 has Iris Pro Graphics P555. Both are capable integrated solutions, but they represent different generations of Intel's graphics architecture.

Memory support marks another architectural fork. The E3-1285 v4 is limited to DDR3 with dual-channel support and a peak bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, whereas the E3-1558L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, also dual-channel, with a higher peak bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. This gives the Skylake part more flexibility and headroom for memory-intensive tasks.

The sockets are completely incompatible: the E3-1285 v4 uses Intel Socket 1150, a socketed desktop/server platform, while the E3-1558L v5 is a BGA 1440 soldered chip. This means the E3-1285 v4 can be upgraded or replaced in a compatible motherboard, while the E3-1558L v5 is permanently attached to its board.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six Cinebench comparisons between these two chips, and the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins all six. The margin is consistent, ranging from 1.1% to 1.6%, but never exceeding 2%. This suggests a small but real performance advantage for the Broadwell part across both single-core and multi-core workloads.

In single-core tests, the E3-1285 v4 scores 93 in Cinebench R15 versus 92 for the E3-1558L v5, a 1.1% lead. In R20 single-core, the gap widens slightly to 1.6% (391 vs 385), while R23 single-core shows a 1.4% difference (931 vs 918). The higher boost clock of the E3-1285 v4 (3.80 GHz versus 3.30 GHz) likely explains this consistent single-thread advantage.

Multi-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows 664 versus 655 (1.4% lead), R20 shows 2770 versus 2733 (1.4% lead), and R23 shows 6596 versus 6508 (1.4% lead). With both chips having 4 cores and 8 threads, the multi-threaded advantage must come from the E3-1285 v4's higher sustained clock speeds rather than any core-count difference.

Interestingly, the E3-1558L v5's larger 8 MB L3 cache and newer Skylake architecture do not translate into a benchmark win. The data suggests that raw clock speed matters more than architectural refinements or cache capacity in these Cinebench workloads. The E3-1285 v4's base clock of 3.50 GHz is nearly double the E3-1558L v5's 1.90 GHz base, giving it a massive head start even before boost clocks are considered.

Neither chip posts a dominant victory. The largest delta is just 1.6% in R20 single-core, which is within run-to-run variance for many systems. However, the consistency across all six tests (all favoring the same chip) indicates a genuine, if modest, performance edge for the E3-1285 v4.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specification sheets. The E3-1285 v4 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the E3-1558L v5 operates at 1900.00 MHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. Thermal design power differs substantially: 95 watts for the E3-1285 v4 versus 45 watts for the E3-1558L v5, making the latter much more power-efficient on paper.

Socket compatibility separates them completely: Intel Socket 1150 for the E3-1285 v4 versus Intel BGA 1440 for the E3-1558L v5. Architecture names differ (Broadwell-DT versus Skylake-H), as do their codenames and generation identifiers. Process nodes match at 14 nm, but die size differs slightly (182 mm² versus 171 mm²).

Memory support shows the E3-1558L v5 as more flexible: it handles both DDR3 and DDR4, while the E3-1285 v4 is DDR3-only. Memory bandwidth also favors the Skylake part at 34.1 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s. L3 cache is 6 MB for the E3-1285 v4 and 8 MB for the E3-1558L v5.

Integrated graphics differ between Intel Iris Pro P6300 (E3-1285 v4) and Iris Pro Graphics P555 (E3-1558L v5). The E3-1285 v4 launched in June 2015 with a launch MSRP of $556, while the E3-1558L v5 launched in May 2016 with a launch MSRP of $396. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers. Part numbers are SR2CX and SR2TU respectively.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 is the faster processor in every recorded test. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with deltas between 1.1% and 1.6%. For users prioritizing raw performance in Cinebench workloads, the E3-1285 v4 is the correct choice.

However, the E3-1558L v5 offers compelling advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. Its 45 watt TDP is less than half the E3-1285 v4's 95 watt TDP, making it dramatically more power-efficient. It supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, offers higher memory bandwidth (34.1 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s), and includes a larger 8 MB L3 cache. These features matter for embedded or compact systems where cooling and power budgets are tight.

The E3-1558L v5 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $396 versus $556 for the E3-1285 v4. The newer Skylake architecture brings 2,300 million transistors and a smaller die, indicating a more modern design. For workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive or cache-sensitive, the E3-1558L v5 might close the performance gap despite its lower clock speeds.

The verdict depends entirely on the use case. Pure compute performance goes to the E3-1285 v4. Efficiency, memory flexibility, and lower acquisition cost go to the E3-1558L v5. Neither chip dominates the other across all dimensions.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins in every single-core and multi-core Cinebench benchmark recorded in the database. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.50 GHz and 3.80 GHz versus 1.90 GHz and 3.30 GHz) deliver a measurable, if modest, performance edge. Users running CPU-bound workloads such as rendering, compilation, or scientific computation will see slightly better results with this chip. Its Socket 1150 compatibility also means it can be installed in standard desktop/server motherboards, offering upgrade flexibility.

The Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 wins in power efficiency with a 45 watt TDP versus 95 watts, a 50 watt difference that translates to substantially lower heat output and potentially quieter cooling solutions. It also wins on memory flexibility with DDR3 and DDR4 support, higher memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s, and a larger 8 MB L3 cache. These attributes suit embedded systems, compact workstations, or any deployment where power consumption and thermal envelope are primary constraints. Its BGA 1440 socket, while not upgradeable, indicates a design intended for tightly integrated, purpose-built systems.

For single-threaded responsiveness, the E3-1285 v4 leads by 1.1% to 1.6% depending on the Cinebench version. For multi-threaded throughput, it leads by 1.4% consistently. The E3-1558L v5, despite its architectural advantages, cannot overcome the clock speed deficit in these recorded tests. The data suggests that clock speed remains the dominant factor in Cinebench performance, overshadowing cache size and architectural generation.