Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 Comparison

# Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 vs Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5

The Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 and Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 are both end-of-life server/workstation processors from Intel, yet they represent two fundamentally different design philosophies within the Xeon lineup. The E5-2608L v3 is a low-power, 6-core Haswell-EP part built for socket 2011-3, while the E3-1505M v5 is a 4-core Skylake-H mobile workstation chip on BGA 1440. Benchmark data across all six Cinebench tests shows the E5-2608L v3 winning every single comparison, though the margins are remarkably thin, ranging from 0.6% to 1.1%. This near-parity in performance despite significant architectural differences makes these two chips a compelling study in how generation, core count, and clock speed interact.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head data is the consistency of the E5-2608L v3's victories. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the E5-2608L v3 scores 637 against the E3-1505M v5's 633, a 0.6% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows a slightly larger gap, with 90 versus 89, translating to a 1.1% lead for the E5-2608L v3. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore scores are 2658 for the E5-2608L v3 and 2639 for the E3-1505M v5, a 0.7% difference. The R20 single-core test shows 375 versus 372, an 0.8% edge.

The Cinebench R23 results continue this pattern. In multicore, the E5-2608L v3 scores 6329, while the E3-1505M v5 scores 6284, again a 0.7% margin. The R23 single-core test shows 893 versus 887, another 0.7% lead. Across all six benchmarks, the E5-2608L v3 wins by margins between 0.6% and 1.1%, with no test going to the E3-1505M v5. The largest relative advantage for the E5-2608L v3 comes in R15 single-core, where the 1.1% delta is double the smallest margin seen in R15 multicore.

The absolute score differences are small: 4 points in R15 multicore, 1 point in R15 single-core, 19 points in R20 multicore, 3 points in R20 single-core, 45 points in R23 multicore, and 6 points in R23 single-core. These deltas are within the range of run-to-run variation for many systems, yet the direction is unanimous. The E5-2608L v3's average benchmark score of 1830 edges out the E3-1505M v5's 1817, a 0.7% overall margin. Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, indicating they occupy nearly identical positions in the broader performance landscape.

When placed against their respective nearest rivals, both chips show similar company. The E5-2608L v3 matches the Intel Xeon D-1537 exactly at 1830, ties the Intel Core i5-8305G at 1831, and sits 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 4600U at 1832 while being 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i7-4790S at 1827. The E3-1505M v5, meanwhile, is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-6600K at 1816, 0.3% behind the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 at 1823, 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810, and 0.5% ahead of the Intel Core i3-9320 at 1808. These rival comparisons reinforce that both chips are mid-pack performers, clustered tightly with other mainstream and server parts from their respective eras.

The Verdict

From the benchmark data alone, the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 is the clear winner, taking all six head-to-head tests. The 0.6% to 1.1% margins are not transformative, but they are consistent across every workload tested. For users who prioritize raw Cinebench performance, the E5-2608L v3 is the better choice, especially since it achieves this while also offering a 52W TDP versus the E3-1505M v5's 45W—a modest power increase for a slight performance gain.

However, the decision is not purely about benchmark scores. The E3-1505M v5 has a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the E5-2608L v3's base clock of 2.00 GHz and no listed boost clock. The E5-2608L v3 compensates with 6 cores versus 4, but the E3-1505M v5 has 8 threads versus 6, thanks to Hyper-Threading, which the E5-2608L v3 lacks. In single-threaded scenarios, the E3-1505M v5's higher clocks should theoretically help, yet the data shows the E5-2608L v3 winning single-core tests by 0.7% to 1.1%. This suggests the Haswell architecture's IPC or the benchmark conditions favor the older chip despite lower clocks.

For server deployments, the E5-2608L v3's socket 2011-3 platform offers quad-channel DDR4 memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, versus the E3-1505M v5's dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s. This memory bandwidth advantage is substantial—75% higher—and could matter in memory-intensive workloads not captured by Cinebench. The E5-2608L v3 also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16, making it more suitable for multi-GPU or high-I/O systems. The E3-1505M v5's integrated HD Graphics P530 is a differentiator, as the E5-2608L v3 has no integrated graphics, but for server use, discrete GPUs are typical.

The E3-1505M v5 is a mobile part, designed for laptops and compact workstations, while the E5-2608L v3 targets rack servers. Their sockets are incompatible, so platform choice likely dictates the processor. The data shows the E5-2608L v3 is modestly faster in Cinebench, but the E3-1505M v5 offers higher clocks, integrated graphics, and a lower TDP—attributes that matter in mobile or space-constrained systems. The verdict is nuanced: the E5-2608L v3 wins on raw benchmark performance and platform scalability, while the E3-1505M v5 wins on efficiency and feature integration.

Architecture Differences

The two processors belong to different Intel microarchitectures and process nodes. The E5-2608L v3 is built on Haswell-EP, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process, and uses the Haswell-EP codename. The E3-1505M v5 is based on Skylake-H, using the 14 nm process node. This process shrink gives the E3-1505M v5 a smaller die size of 122 mm² versus the E5-2608L v3's 356 mm², and fewer transistors at 2,300 million versus 2,600 million. The 22 nm Haswell design is older, but the larger die accommodates more cores and cache.

The E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no Hyper-Threading, while the E3-1505M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The E5-2608L v3's L3 cache is 15 MB shared, nearly double the E3-1505M v5's 8 MB shared. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The larger L3 cache on the E5-2608L v3 likely helps in multi-threaded workloads, though the benchmark results show only marginal gains.

The integrated graphics situation is a major architectural divergence. The E3-1505M v5 includes HD Graphics P530, while the E5-2608L v3 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the E3-1505M v5 a self-contained solution for systems without discrete GPUs. The E5-2608L v3 relies entirely on external graphics, which is standard for server platforms.

Memory architecture differs significantly. The E5-2608L v3 supports DDR4 only, with a quad-channel memory bus delivering 59.7 GB/s. The E3-1505M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but only dual-channel, capping bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is expected for Xeon parts. The E5-2608L v3's PCIe configuration offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes, while the E3-1505M v5 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Specification Differences

The most obvious spec difference is core and thread counts: the E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the E3-1505M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ, with the E5-2608L v3 at 2.00 GHz and the E3-1505M v5 at 2.80 GHz, plus a 3.70 GHz boost clock that the E5-2608L v3 lacks. The TDPs are close—52W for the E5-2608L v3 and 45W for the E3-1505M v5—but the E5-2608L v3 draws slightly more power.

Sockets are completely different: the E5-2608L v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E3-1505M v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, meaning the latter is soldered and not upgradeable. The E5-2608L v3's L3 cache is 15 MB versus 8 MB, and its memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s. The E5-2608L v3 supports only DDR4, while the E3-1505M v5 supports DDR3 and DDR4.

PCIe lane counts differ, with 40 lanes on the E5-2608L v3 and 16 on the E3-1505M v5. The E3-1505M v5 has integrated HD Graphics P530; the E5-2608L v3 has none. Release dates show the E5-2608L v3 launched in September 2014, roughly 14 months before the E3-1505M v5's October 2015 debut. Both are end-of-life. The launch MSRP for the E5-2608L v3 is $441, and for the E3-1505M v5 it is $434. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and part numbers are SR20BSR21P for the E5-2608L v3 and SR2FM for the E3-1505M v5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores, while the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 has 4 cores.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the E5-2608L v3 and the E3-1505M v5 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, while the E5-2608L v3 has no listed boost clock.

Q: What are the Cinebench R23 multicore scores?

A: The E5-2608L v3 scores 6329, and the E3-1505M v5 scores 6284 in Cinebench R23 multicore.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 has integrated graphics, featuring HD Graphics P530; the E5-2608L v3 has none.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The E5-2608L v3 has an average benchmark score of 1830, versus 1817 for the E3-1505M v5, and both sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The E5-2608L v3 offers 59.7 GB/s with quad-channel DDR4, while the E3-1505M v5 provides 34.1 GB/s with dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4.