Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture. Across every single benchmark entry, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 comes out ahead. The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 does not manage a single win in the six head-to-head comparisons. The margins are uniform, which suggests a fundamental performance characteristic rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Starting with Cinebench R15, the multi-core test shows the E3-1285 v4 scoring 664 points against the E5-1630 v4’s 651 points. That is a 2% deficit for the E5 part. The single-core R15 test follows the same pattern: 93 points for the E3-1285 v4, 91 points for the E5-1630 v4, a 2.2% gap. These are small margins, but they are consistent across the entire benchmark suite.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result places the E3-1285 v4 at 2770 points, while the E5-1630 v4 trails at 2714 points. Again, the delta is 2%. The single-core R20 test shows 391 versus 383, another 2% edge for the E3-1285 v4. The pattern holds perfectly.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding test in the set, reinforces the trend. The multi-core score for the E3-1285 v4 is 6596, compared to 6464 for the E5-1630 v4. The single-core result is 931 versus 912. Every single one of these six head-to-head comparisons lands within a 2% to 2.2% range, all favoring the E3-1285 v4.

What does that mean in practice? The differences are real but small. A 2% gap in Cinebench scores is unlikely to be perceptible in everyday use, but it does establish a clear ranking. The E3-1285 v4 is the faster processor in this direct comparison, and the data leaves no room for ambiguity.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The E3-1285 v4 has an average score of 1908, while the E5-1630 v4 sits at 1869. That is roughly a 2% advantage for the E3 part, consistent with the individual test results. The percentile rankings are nearly identical: the E3-1285 v4 lands at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs, while the E5-1630 v4 sits at the 42nd percentile. These are close, but the E3 part nudges ahead in both metrics.

The nearest rivals in the database further contextualize these scores. The E5-1630 v4’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-9350K, with an average score of 1867, just 0.1% behind. The Intel Core i5-1035G4 follows at 1861, 0.4% behind. The Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 is 0.5% ahead, and the Intel Processor U300 is 0.6% ahead. The E5-1630 v4 sits in a tight cluster of similarly performing CPUs.

For the E3-1285 v4, the nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3, with an average score of 1907, a delta of 0%. The AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE and the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 both score 1910, 0.1% ahead. The Intel Xeon E-2314 is 0.2% ahead at 1911. The E3-1285 v4 also sits in a dense grouping, but its position is slightly higher than the E5-1630 v4’s.

The head-to-head data is unambiguous. The E3-1285 v4 wins all six tests, and the deltas are all negative for the E5-1630 v4, ranging from 2% to 2.2%. There is no test where the E5-1630 v4 closes the gap or takes the lead. The question is not whether one is faster, but why the E3 part, with a lower base clock and less cache, consistently outperforms its sibling.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the E3-1285 v4 wins in every measured category. There is no workload split where the E5-1630 v4 comes out on top. Both processors have the same core and thread counts: 4 cores and 8 threads. The single-core results favor the E3-1285 v4 by roughly 2% across R15, R20, and R23. The multi-core results also favor the E3-1285 v4 by the same margin.

For users who prioritize single-threaded performance, such as older games or lightly threaded applications, the E3-1285 v4 is the clear choice. Its single-core scores are consistently higher in every Cinebench version. The 93 versus 91 in R15, the 391 versus 383 in R20, and the 931 versus 912 in R23 all point in the same direction.

For multi-threaded workloads, such as video encoding or 3D rendering, the E3-1285 v4 also takes the lead. The multi-core scores are 664 versus 651 in R15, 2770 versus 2714 in R20, and 6596 versus 6464 in R23. The margins are identical to the single-core tests, suggesting that the advantage is not tied to thread scaling but to the per-core performance itself.

The E5-1630 v4 does have a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to 3.50 GHz and 3.80 GHz for the E3-1285 v4. Yet the benchmark data shows the lower-clocked E3 part winning. This implies that other architectural factors, such as memory bandwidth or cache behavior, may be playing a role, despite the E3 part having less L3 cache.

In terms of market positioning, the E5-1630 v4 is classified as a Desktop part, while the E3-1285 v4 is listed as Server/Workstation. That distinction does not show up in the benchmark results, but it may matter for platform compatibility. The E5-1630 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E3-1285 v4 uses Intel Socket 1150. This is a fundamental hardware difference that cannot be ignored.

If a use case demands the absolute highest Cinebench scores, the E3-1285 v4 is the only choice between these two. If a use case requires the E5-1630 v4’s platform features, such as quad-channel memory or 40 PCIe lanes, then the performance deficit is the cost of admission. But on pure compute performance, the E3-1285 v4 wins every benchmark.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node and share the Broadwell architecture. However, they are distinct variants. The E5-1630 v4 is part of the Broadwell-EP family, designed for server platforms, while the E3-1285 v4 belongs to the Broadwell-DT family, aimed at desktop and workstation systems. The codenames differ: Broadwell-EP for the E5 part, Broadwell-DT for the E3 part.

The die size reflects this split. The E5-1630 v4 has a die size of 246 mm², while the E3-1285 v4 is smaller at 182 mm². The E5 part also has a transistor count of 3,400 million, though no transistor count is listed for the E3 part. This suggests that the E5-1630 v4 is a more complex chip, likely due to the larger memory controller and additional PCIe lanes.

The cache configurations differ as well. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache, however, is not the same. The E5-1630 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E3-1285 v4 has only 6 MB. Despite having 4 MB more cache, the E5 part still loses in every benchmark. This is a notable finding.

The integrated graphics also separate the two. The E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics, while the E5-1630 v4 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the E3 part a more complete solution for systems that do not use a discrete GPU. The E5 part requires an external graphics card.

Memory support is another divergence. The E5-1630 v4 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The E3-1285 v4 supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The E5 part has more than double the memory bandwidth, yet it still trails in compute benchmarks. This suggests that Cinebench workloads are not bandwidth-limited for these processors.

PCIe connectivity differs substantially. The E5-1630 v4 provides Gen 3, 40 lanes from the CPU, while the E3-1285 v4 provides Gen 3, 16 lanes. The E5 part is clearly intended for systems with many expansion cards, multiple GPUs, or high-speed storage arrays. The E3 part is more limited in this regard.

Both processors support ECC memory, which is a common requirement for server and workstation environments. Both are also end-of-life products, though the E5-1630 v4 was released on 2016-06-19, while the E3-1285 v4 came earlier on 2015-06-01. The E5 part is a later release.

Specification Differences

The specifications that differ between the two are straightforward. The base clock is 3.70 GHz for the E5-1630 v4 and 3.50 GHz for the E3-1285 v4. The boost clock is 4.00 GHz for the E5 part and 3.80 GHz for the E3 part. The E5 part has a higher thermal design power (TDP) of 140 watts, while the E3 part is rated at 95 watts.

The socket types are different: Intel Socket 2011-3 for the E5-1630 v4 and Intel Socket 1150 for the E3-1285 v4. The memory type is DDR4 for the E5 part and DDR3 for the E3 part. The memory bus is quad-channel for the E5 part and dual-channel for the E3 part. Memory bandwidth is 76.8 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s, favoring the E5 part.

The L3 cache is 10 MB for the E5-1630 v4 and 6 MB for the E3-1285 v4. The die size is 246 mm² versus 182 mm². The E5 part has no integrated graphics, while the E3 part includes Intel Iris Pro P6300. The PCIe lanes are 40 for the E5 part and 16 for the E3 part. The market segment is Desktop for the E5 part and Server/Workstation for the E3 part.

The launch MSRP for the E5-1630 v4 is $406, while the E3-1285 v4 has a launch MSRP of $556. This is a notable difference, but the benchmark data does not reflect any price-performance analysis here. The release dates differ: 2016-06-19 for the E5 part and 2015-06-01 for the E3 part. The part numbers are SR2PF for the E5 and SR2CX for the E3. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz.

Q: Does the E3-1285 v4 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus.

Q: What is the L3 cache size for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 scores 6596, while the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 scores 6464. The E3-1285 v4 wins by 2%.

Q: What are the socket types for these two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 uses Intel Socket 1150.

The Verdict

The data points to a single conclusion: the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 2% to 2.2%. Its average benchmark score is 1908, compared to 1869 for the E5-1630 v4. Its percentile ranking is 43, versus 42 for the E5 part.

The E5-1630 v4 does have advantages in other areas. It offers higher clock speeds, a larger L3 cache, quad-channel DDR4 memory support, and significantly more PCIe lanes. Its memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s dwarfs the 29.9 GB/s of the E3-1285 v4. It also has a larger die and a higher TDP. But none of these translate into higher Cinebench scores.

Anyone selecting between these two should focus on the platform requirements. If the system demands a Socket 2011-3 motherboard, quad-channel memory, or 40 PCIe lanes, the E5-1630 v4 is the only option. If the system uses Socket 1150 and can accept DDR3 memory, the E3-1285 v4 delivers better raw compute performance.

The E3-1285 v4 also has the benefit of integrated graphics, which eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its lower TDP of 95 watts, compared to 140 watts for the E5-1630 v4, may reduce cooling requirements. The E5 part, by contrast, requires a dedicated graphics solution.

For pure processing power, as measured by Cinebench, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 is the clear winner. For expansion capability and memory bandwidth, the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 holds the edge. The choice comes down to the platform, not the processor’s compute performance. The benchmark data is consistent and decisive: the E3-1285 v4 is the faster CPU.