Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 and the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 are both 4-core, 8-thread server/workstation processors, yet they come from different eras and design philosophies. The data reveals an extraordinarily tight contest, with the older Haswell-EP part edging out the newer Skylake-H chip in every single recorded benchmark. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical at 1823 for the E5-1630 v3 and 1817 for the E3-1505M v5, placing both at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs. This performance parity is remarkable given their architectural differences, making the choice between them dependent on platform and feature priorities rather than raw speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 across all six Cinebench tests. In the multicore R15 test, the E5-1630 v3 scores 635 against the E3-1505M v5's 633, a delta of 0.3%. This pattern repeats in the R20 multicore test, where the E5-1630 v3 posts 2647 versus 2639, again a 0.3% lead. The R23 multicore test shows the same margin, with 6303 for the E5-1630 v3 and 6284 for the E3-1505M v5.

Single-core performance is equally close. The R15 single-core test produces a perfect tie at 89 points for both processors. In R20 single-core, the E5-1630 v3 edges ahead with 373 against 372, a 0.3% difference. The R23 single-core test mirrors this, showing 889 for the E5-1630 v3 and 887 for the E3-1505M v5, a 0.2% margin. Across all six benchmarks, the E5-1630 v3 wins six and the E3-1505M v5 wins zero.

The consistency of these results is striking. The largest delta in any test is 0.3%, which is within the margin of run-to-run variation for most benchmark suites. The average benchmark score gap is just 6 points out of roughly 1820, or about 0.3%. The nearest rival data confirms the tight grouping: the E5-1630 v3 is 0.3% ahead of the E3-1505M v5, while the E3-1505M v5 is 0.3% behind the E5-1630 v3. Both CPUs sit between the Intel Core i7-4790S (1827) and the Intel Xeon D-1537 (1830) in the E5-1630 v3's rival list, and between the Intel Core i5-6600K (1816) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (1810) in the E3-1505M v5's list.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 is the faster processor, winning all six head-to-head tests. However, the margins are so small that they are practically negligible in real-world use. A 0.3% difference in Cinebench scores would not be perceptible in most workloads. The E5-1630 v3's lead is consistent but not meaningful for users seeking a performance advantage.

The more significant differentiators are the platform-level specifications. The E5-1630 v3 uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform with quad-channel DDR4 memory, delivering 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The E3-1505M v5 uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket with dual-channel memory support for DDR3 and DDR4, providing 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. This is a fundamental difference: the E5-1630 v3 offers exactly double the memory bandwidth of the E3-1505M v5. For memory-intensive workloads, this could outweigh the small core-performance advantage.

The E5-1630 v3 also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, compared to 16 on the E3-1505M v5. This makes the E5-1630 v3 better suited for multi-GPU or high-throughput I/O configurations. The E3-1505M v5, being a mobile-oriented part (BGA 1440), includes integrated HD Graphics P530, which the E5-1630 v3 lacks entirely. The E5-1630 v3 has a 140W TDP versus 45W for the E3-1505M v5, reflecting its desktop/workstation power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gulf between these two processors is wide. The E5-1630 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture using a 22 nm process node, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. The E3-1505M v5 uses the newer Skylake-H architecture on a 14 nm node, with a dramatically smaller die of 122 mm² and 2,300 million transistors. The newer process node allows the E3-1505M v5 to achieve comparable performance at a fraction of the power and die size.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the E5-1630 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache versus 8 MB on the E3-1505M v5. The larger L3 cache on the E5-1630 v3 may help in cache-sensitive workloads, though the benchmark data does not show a clear advantage. The E3-1505M v5 compensates with a newer microarchitecture that offers higher instructions per clock, allowing its lower 2.80 GHz base clock to compete with the E5-1630 v3's 3.70 GHz base clock.

The E5-1630 v3's boost clock is 3.80 GHz, while the E3-1505M v5 boosts to 3.70 GHz. The E5-1630 v3's higher clocks, combined with its larger L3 cache, explain its slight benchmark edge. Both processors have locked multipliers, so overclocking is not an option.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal several key differences beyond performance. The most obvious is the socket: the E5-1630 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E3-1505M v5 uses Intel BGA 1440. This means the E5-1630 v3 is socketed and replaceable, while the E3-1505M v5 is soldered to the motherboard, typical of mobile platforms.

The TDP difference is substantial: 140W for the E5-1630 v3 versus 45W for the E3-1505M v5. This affects cooling requirements and power delivery. The E5-1630 v3 requires a robust cooling solution, while the E3-1505M v5 can operate with a modest cooler, making it suitable for compact systems.

Memory support diverges sharply. The E5-1630 v3 exclusively supports DDR4 in a quad-channel configuration, yielding 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The E3-1505M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 but only in dual-channel mode, capping bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s. The PCIe lane count also differs: 40 lanes on the E5-1630 v3 versus 16 on the E3-1505M v5.

The E3-1505M v5 includes integrated HD Graphics P530, which the E5-1630 v3 does not have. This makes the E3-1505M v5 a complete system-on-chip, while the E5-1630 v3 requires a discrete GPU. The E3-1505M v5 also has a launch MSRP of $434, a figure absent for the E5-1630 v3. Both support ECC memory. The E5-1630 v3 was released in September 2014, while the E3-1505M v5 arrived in October 2015.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to 2.80 GHz for the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5. The boost clocks are closer, at 3.80 GHz and 3.70 GHz respectively.

Q: How do the memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The E5-1630 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth, exactly double the 34.1 GB/s available to the E3-1505M v5, which uses dual-channel memory supporting both DDR3 and DDR4.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The E5-1630 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the E3-1505M v5 provides 16 lanes. This gives the E5-1630 v3 more headroom for expansion cards.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The E3-1505M v5 includes HD Graphics P530, while the E5-1630 v3 has no integrated graphics. A discrete GPU is required for the E5-1630 v3.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The E5-1630 v3 has a TDP of 140W, while the E3-1505M v5 has a TDP of 45W. The E3-1505M v5 is far more power-efficient.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The E5-1630 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 8 MB on the E3-1505M v5. Both have identical L1 and L2 cache sizes per core.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 wins in raw benchmark performance, taking all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. Its higher base and boost clocks, larger L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bandwidth make it the stronger choice for memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks such as large dataset processing or virtualized workloads. The 40 PCIe lanes support configurations with multiple GPUs or high-speed storage controllers. This processor is suited for a traditional socketed workstation motherboard where power consumption is not a primary concern.

The Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 wins on platform flexibility and efficiency. Its 45W TDP allows for passive cooling in compact chassis or laptop-style enclosures. The integrated HD Graphics P530 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios, reducing system complexity. The support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory gives system builders more options for memory sourcing. Its smaller die size (122 mm² versus 356 mm²) and lower transistor count (2,300 million versus 2,600 million) reflect a more efficient design. The BGA 1440 socket indicates a mobile or embedded target, where the soldered CPU provides a permanent, reliable connection.

The data shows no clear winner for users who prioritize pure computational speed, as the differences are within 0.3% across all tests. The decision hinges on the platform: choose the E5-1630 v3 for maximum memory bandwidth, PCIe expansion, and a socketed upgrade path; choose the E3-1505M v5 for power efficiency, integrated graphics, and memory flexibility. The E5-1630 v3's 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and 40 lanes are decisive for high-throughput systems, while the E3-1505M v5's 45W TDP and HD Graphics P530 make it the only option for fanless or low-power designs.