Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 and Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 are both 4-core, 8-thread server/workstation processors from Intel, yet they target fundamentally different platforms. The E3-1505M v5 is a Skylake-H mobile/embedded part on the BGA 1440 socket, while the E5-1620 v4 is a Broadwell-EP desktop part on Socket 2011-3. Despite their architectural and platform differences, benchmark results show they land in the same performance tier, with the E3-1505M v5 holding a narrow but consistent edge across all tested Cinebench workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5, though the margins are uniformly thin. Across all six Cinebench tests, the E3-1505M v5 wins, with deltaPct values ranging from 0.8% to 1.1%. This is not a case of one processor dominating another; rather, it reflects a near-identical performance ceiling for both chips in these workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E3-1505M v5 scores 633 against the E5-1620 v4's 627, a 1% difference. The single-core variant shows a similar pattern: 89 versus 88, a 1.1% lead for the E3-1505M v5. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore results are 2639 for the E3-1505M v5 and 2616 for the E5-1620 v4, a delta of 0.9%. The single-core R20 test shows 372 versus 369, another 0.8% advantage for the E3-1505M v5.

The most recent test generation, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. The E3-1505M v5 posts 6284 in multicore against 6230 for the E5-1620 v4, a 0.9% lead. In R23 single-core, the scores are 887 and 879, again a 0.9% delta. The consistency of these margins — all under 1.1% — suggests that the two processors are effectively matched in raw compute capability, with the E3-1505M v5's slightly higher boost clock (3.70 GHz versus 3.80 GHz for the E5-1620 v4) not being the deciding factor. Instead, the E3-1505M v5's architectural efficiency from the Skylake core appears to offset its lower clock speeds.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the E3-1505M v5 averages 1817, while the E5-1620 v4 averages 1802. Both sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs. The nearest rivals confirm this mid-pack positioning. For the E3-1505M v5, the Intel Core i5-6600K averages 1816 (0.1% delta), and the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 averages 1823 (-0.3% delta). The E5-1620 v4's closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-9100 at 1806 (-0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810 (-0.4% delta). These figures place both Xeons squarely in the same performance band as mainstream quad-core parts from the same era.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. It scores 89 in R15 versus 88 for the E5-1620 v4 (1.1% lead), 372 in R20 versus 369 (0.8% lead), and 887 in R23 versus 879 (0.9% lead).

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-threaded performance?

A: The E3-1505M v5 also wins all three multi-core tests. In R15 it scores 633 versus 627 (1% lead), in R20 it scores 2639 versus 2616 (0.9% lead), and in R23 it scores 6284 versus 6230 (0.9% lead). The margins are narrow but consistent.

Q: Which CPU has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The E3-1505M v5 has an average benchmark score of 1817, while the E5-1620 v4 averages 1802. Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are in the same performance tier.

Q: What are the closest rivals to these processors?

A: For the E3-1505M v5, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-6600K (average score 1816, 0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 (average score 1823, -0.3% delta). For the E5-1620 v4, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-9100 (average score 1806, -0.2% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (average score 1810, -0.4% delta).

Q: Do the processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads. They also share the same L1 cache size (64 KB per core) and L2 cache size (256 KB per core). The E5-1620 v4 has a larger L3 cache at 10 MB shared, compared to 8 MB shared for the E3-1505M v5.

Q: Which processor has higher clock speeds?

A: The E5-1620 v4 has higher base and boost clocks: 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The E3-1505M v5 runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. Despite the E5-1620 v4's clock advantage, the E3-1505M v5 wins every benchmark.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. There is no test in the suite where the E5-1620 v4 takes the lead. This means the E3-1505M v5 is the better choice for any workload represented by Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded.

That said, the margins are so small (under 1.1% in every case) that real-world application differences would likely be imperceptible. The E3-1505M v5's wins are more a reflection of architectural efficiency than any substantial performance advantage. For users prioritizing the absolute highest benchmark scores in this comparison, the E3-1505M v5 is the pick.

However, the E5-1620 v4 has its own areas of strength that are not captured by compute benchmarks. Its platform offers quad-channel memory support with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, compared to the E3-1505M v5's dual-channel 34.1 GB/s. For memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads, the E5-1620 v4's platform is clearly superior, even if the Cinebench scores do not reflect it. Additionally, the E5-1620 v4 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, versus 16 for the E3-1505M v5, making it more suitable for configurations with multiple GPUs or high-speed storage devices. The E5-1620 v4 also has a 10 MB L3 cache versus 8 MB, which could benefit workloads with larger working sets.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every platform-level specification. The E3-1505M v5 uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, while the E5-1620 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. This immediately dictates different motherboard compatibility and upgrade paths. The E3-1505M v5 has a TDP of 45 watts, making it far more power-efficient than the E5-1620 v4's 140 watts. This 95-watt difference is substantial, though the E5-1620 v4's higher power envelope enables higher clock speeds.

Memory support differs significantly. The E3-1505M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The E5-1620 v4 supports only DDR4 but in a quad-channel configuration, delivering 76.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth. This is the largest specification gap between the two and has direct implications for memory-intensive applications.

PCIe connectivity also diverges: the E3-1505M v5 offers 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the E5-1620 v4 offers 40. The E3-1505M v5 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics P530), whereas the E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics. The launch MSRP also differs: the E3-1505M v5 was $434, while the E5-1620 v4 was $294. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is between Skylake and Broadwell. The E3-1505M v5 uses the Skylake-H architecture on a 14 nm process node, with a die size of 122 mm² and 2,300 million transistors. The E5-1620 v4 uses the Broadwell-EP architecture, also on 14 nm, but with a significantly larger die size of 246 mm² and 3,400 million transistors. The larger die and higher transistor count for the E5-1620 v4 reflect its more complex platform features, such as quad-channel memory controller and additional PCIe lanes, rather than additional compute cores.

Both processors share the same L1 cache (64 KB per core) and L2 cache (256 KB per core). The L3 cache differs: 8 MB shared for the E3-1505M v5 versus 10 MB shared for the E5-1620 v4. The E3-1505M v5's integrated graphics (HD Graphics P530) is a feature absent from the E5-1620 v4, making the former a more self-contained solution for systems without a discrete GPU. The E3-1505M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the E5-1620 v4 is DDR4-only. Both support ECC memory, and both are manufactured by Intel on the 14 nm process. The E3-1505M v5 was released earlier, with a launch date of 2015-10-26, while the E5-1620 v4 followed on 2016-06-19.