Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 are, for all practical purposes, benchmark twins. Across every Cinebench test in the dataset, the two processors produce scores that are functionally identical, with the E3-1285 v4 edging out the E5-2620 v3 by exactly one point in two of the six tests and tying in the remaining four. This head-to-head parity is remarkable given their divergent internal architectures—one is a 4-core Broadwell part with integrated graphics, the other a 6-core Haswell part with massive memory bandwidth—yet the data shows they deliver the same application performance. Their average benchmark scores are 1908 and 1907, respectively, a 0% delta that places them both in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. The real differentiation lies not in raw speed but in platform features, power characteristics, and system-level capabilities.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher core count?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Do the two CPUs have the same benchmark scores?

A: Yes, essentially. They tie at 664 in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 93 in single-core. The E3-1285 v4 leads by 1 point in Cinebench R20 multi-core (2770 vs 2769) and by 1 point in R23 multi-core (6596 vs 6595), with exact ties in R20 and R23 single-core at 391 and 931.

Q: Which processor supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 supports DDR4 with a quad-channel memory bus. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which CPU includes integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics.

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

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Q: Which processor has the higher power consumption?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has a 95W TDP, while the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has an 85W TDP.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split between these two Xeons is stark. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 is built on Intel's 14 nm process with the Broadwell-DT codename, while the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 uses the older 22 nm process with the Haswell-EP codename. This process gap explains why the E3-1285 v4 achieves higher clock speeds—3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost—versus the E5-2620 v3's 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. The E3-1285 v4 compensates for its fewer cores with a much smaller die size of 182 mm², while the E5-2620 v3's larger 356 mm² die houses 2,600 million transistors.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both share 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the L3 cache diverges: the E3-1285 v4 has 6 MB shared, while the E5-2620 v3 has 15 MB shared. This 9 MB L3 advantage for the E5-2620 v3 is typical of server parts designed for larger working sets. Memory support further separates them—the E3-1285 v4 runs DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the E5-2620 v3 runs DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, doubling the theoretical memory throughput.

The E3-1285 v4 integrates Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics, a feature absent from the E5-2620 v3. PCIe connectivity also favors the E5-2620 v3, which offers 40 lanes versus 16 lanes on the E3-1285 v4. Both use Intel Socket 1150 and 2011-3, respectively, and both are end-of-life server/workstation parts with ECC memory support. The E3-1285 v4 launched in June 2015, while the E5-2620 v3 launched earlier in September 2014.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are a study in near-perfect parity. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 664, with a delta of 0%. The single-core R15 test also ties at 93. Moving to Cinebench R20, the E3-1285 v4 scores 2770 in multi-core versus the E5-2620 v3's 2769—a 1-point, 0% delta. The R20 single-core test is a dead tie at 391. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the same pattern: 6596 for the E3-1285 v4 versus 6595 for the E5-2620 v3, again a 1-point difference. The R23 single-core test ties at 931.

The data shows the E3-1285 v4 as the nominal winner in all six head-to-head benchmarks, but with a delta of 0% in every case. This means the two CPUs deliver identical real-world performance in these rendering workloads. The 6-core E5-2620 v3 does not translate its extra cores into a multi-core advantage, likely because its lower clock speeds offset the core count. Conversely, the 4-core E3-1285 v4 does not fall behind despite having two fewer cores, thanks to its higher clocks and newer 14 nm process.

The average benchmark score reinforces this: 1908 for the E3-1285 v4 against 1907 for the E5-2620 v3. Both sit at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. In the nearestRivals data, the E3-1285 v4 is matched against the E5-2620 v3 with a 0% delta, while the E5-2620 v3's closest rival is the E3-1285 v4 at 0%, followed by the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE at -0.2% and the Intel Core i3-9100F at 0.2%. These deltas confirm that neither Xeon has a meaningful performance edge over the other in this benchmark suite.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every key specification except for L1/L2 cache per core and ECC support. Core count differs: 4 cores on the E3-1285 v4 versus 6 cores on the E5-2620 v3, with threads at 8 and 12, respectively. Base clocks are 3.50 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP is higher on the E3-1285 v4 at 95W versus 85W on the E5-2620 v3.

Socket and architecture are completely different: Socket 1150 with Broadwell-DT on the E3-1285 v4, versus Socket 2011-3 with Haswell-EP on the E5-2620 v3. Process nodes are 14 nm for the E3-1285 v4 and 22 nm for the E5-2620 v3, with die sizes of 182 mm² and 356 mm², respectively. The E5-2620 v3 lists 2,600 million transistors, while the E3-1285 v4 does not provide a transistor count.

L3 cache differs significantly: 6 MB shared on the E3-1285 v4 versus 15 MB shared on the E5-2620 v3. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth on the E3-1285 v4, versus DDR4 quad-channel with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth on the E5-2620 v3. PCIe lanes are 16 on the E3-1285 v4 and 40 on the E5-2620 v3. The E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300 integrated graphics; the E5-2620 v3 has none. Launch MSRP differs: $556 for the E3-1285 v4 and $417 for the E5-2620 v3. Release dates are June 2015 for the E3-1285 v4 and September 2014 for the E5-2620 v3. The E3-1285 v4 has part number SR2CX; the E5-2620 v3 has SR207.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark parity, the choice between these two CPUs hinges entirely on platform-level features. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins on clock speed, with a 3.80 GHz boost versus 3.20 GHz. It also wins on process efficiency, using 14 nm versus 22 nm, and includes integrated Iris Pro P6300 graphics, which is a decisive factor for systems that cannot accommodate a discrete GPU. Its smaller die size and lower memory bandwidth requirements make it suitable for compact Socket 1150 motherboards.

The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 wins on core and thread count, offering 6 cores and 12 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads. It also wins decisively on memory bandwidth, at 59.7 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s, and supports DDR4 with a quad-channel bus. Its 15 MB L3 cache is 9 MB larger, and its 40 PCIe lanes are more than double the E3-1285 v4's 16 lanes. The E5-2620 v3 also has a lower TDP at 85W versus 95W, despite having more cores.

In terms of benchmark wins, the E3-1285 v4 takes all six head-to-head tests, but every win is by 0% delta. The E5-2620 v3 has zero wins in the head-to-head data. However, the E5-2620 v3's superior memory system and PCIe lane count make it the better choice for memory-intensive or I/O-heavy workloads, even though Cinebench does not reflect this advantage. The E3-1285 v4, conversely, is the better choice for clock-sensitive tasks and systems needing integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data presents an unambiguous conclusion: for CPU compute workloads, these two processors are interchangeable. The E3-1285 v4 technically wins all six Cinebench benchmarks, but a 1-point difference in R20 and R23 multi-core, with exact ties elsewhere, means the performance outcome is identical. The E5-2620 v3's 6-core/12-thread configuration is completely neutralized by its lower clock speeds and older 22 nm process when compared against the E3-1285 v4's 4-core/8-thread design on 14 nm with a 3.80 GHz boost.

The verdict should be driven by platform requirements, not CPU performance. Choose the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 if you need integrated graphics, higher clock speeds, or a smaller Socket 1150 platform. Choose the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 if you need quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, 15 MB L3 cache, 40 PCIe lanes, or a lower 85W TDP. The E5-2620 v3 also offers more cores for workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench measures, though the benchmark data does not show this benefit. The E3-1285 v4 carries a higher launch MSRP of $556 versus $417 for the E5-2620 v3, yet delivers the same benchmark scores. For users strictly following the Cinebench results, either CPU will perform identically; for users with specific platform needs, the E5-2620 v3's memory and PCIe capabilities make it the more expansive server part, while the E3-1285 v4's integrated graphics and newer process make it the more self-contained workstation option.