Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 wins all six recorded comparisons against the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3. The largest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the E3-1505M v5 scores 6284 against 6144 for the E5-4610 v3, a 2.3% advantage. The same 2.3% delta appears in Cinebench R15 multicore (633 vs 619) and Cinebench R20 multicore (2639 vs 2580). Single-core results follow the same pattern: the E3-1505M v5 leads by 2.3% in R15 (89 vs 87), by 2.2% in R20 (372 vs 364), and by 2.3% in R23 (887 vs 867). Every recorded test, regardless of workload type or rendering engine version, lands in favor of the E3-1505M v5.

The consistency of these margins is notable. Across six separate benchmarks, the delta never exceeds 2.3% and never drops below 2.2%. This tight clustering suggests a stable, clock-for-clock advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The E3-1505M v5 posts a perfect 6-0 record in head-to-head wins, while the E5-4610 v3 does not claim a single victory in any measured category.

Looking at the broader database context, the E3-1505M v5 holds an average benchmark score of 1817, which places it at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs. Its nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-6600K, scores 1816, a mere 0.1% difference. The E5-4610 v3, by contrast, averages 1777 and sits at the 41st percentile. Its closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300, scores 1778, meaning the E5-4610 v3 trails that chip by 0.1%. The 40-point gap in average scores between these two Xeons corresponds to a one-percentile difference in the overall distribution, a small but real separation.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1505M v5 wins everywhere in this direct comparison, but the nature of its victories matters. In single-core tests, the advantage is driven by its higher base clock of 2.80 GHz and boost clock of 3.70 GHz, combined with a newer Skylake architecture. The E5-4610 v3, with a base clock of 1700.00 MHz and no recorded boost clock, cannot match that single-thread pace. For workloads that depend on one or two threads, such as legacy applications, light scripting, or interactive response times, the E3-1505M v5 is clearly the better choice.

In multicore tests, the E3-1505M v5 still wins, but the margin is narrower than its core-count disadvantage would suggest. The E5-4610 v3 fields 10 cores and 20 threads against the E3-1505M v5's 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having 2.5 times as many cores, the E5-4610 v3 only trails by 2.3% in Cinebench R23 multicore. This indicates that the E3-1505M v5's higher per-core throughput, driven by a faster clock and more efficient Skylake design, nearly compensates for the E5-4610 v3's raw core count. For heavily threaded renders, the E5-4610 v3's extra cores keep it competitive, but they do not translate into a win.

The E5-4610 v3 does have structural advantages that do not appear in these benchmarks. Its quad-channel memory bus delivers 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the E3-1505M v5's dual-channel 34.1 GB/s. It also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes against 16 lanes on the E3-1505M v5. These features matter for systems that move large data sets or drive many peripherals, even if they do not show up in Cinebench scores. For pure compute benchmarks, however, the E3-1505M v5 is the definitive winner.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 averages 1817, while the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 averages 1777. The E3-1505M v5 leads by 40 points, which corresponds to a 42nd percentile ranking versus 41st.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The E3-1505M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, giving it 2.5 times the core count.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 single-core performance?

A: The E3-1505M v5 scores 887 in Cinebench R23 single-core, beating the E5-4610 v3's 867 by 2.3%.

Q: Does the E5-4610 v3 win any benchmark comparison?

A: No. In the six recorded head-to-head tests, the E5-4610 v3 wins zero. The E3-1505M v5 wins all six.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The E5-4610 v3 provides 51.2 GB/s over a quad-channel memory bus. The E3-1505M v5 provides 34.1 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The E5-4610 v3 offers roughly 50% more bandwidth.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The E3-1505M v5 is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i5-6600K (1816) and trails the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 (1823) by 0.3%. The E5-4610 v3 is within 0.1% of the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 (1778) and trails the AMD Ryzen 3 3200GE (1787) by 0.6%.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply on core configuration. The E3-1505M v5 uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the E5-4610 v3 uses 10 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks differ dramatically: the E3-1505M v5 runs at 2.80 GHz, while the E5-4610 v3 runs at 1700.00 MHz. The E3-1505M v5 also lists a boost clock of 3.70 GHz; the E5-4610 v3 has no recorded boost clock.

Power envelopes separate them further. The E3-1505M v5 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the E5-4610 v3 draws 105 watts. Socket compatibility differs entirely: the E3-1505M v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, while the E5-4610 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Memory support overlaps on DDR4, but the E3-1505M v5 also accepts DDR3, whereas the E5-4610 v3 is DDR4-only. The memory bus width favors the E5-4610 v3 with quad-channel support, against dual-channel on the E3-1505M v5. PCIe lane counts also differ: 16 lanes for the E3-1505M v5, 40 lanes for the E5-4610 v3.

The launch MSRP for the E3-1505M v5 is $434. The launch MSRP for the E5-4610 v3 is $1219. Both parts are end-of-life. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The E3-1505M v5 integrates HD Graphics P530, while the E5-4610 v3 has no integrated graphics. Part numbers are SR2FM for the E3-1505M v5 and SR22S for the E5-4610 v3. Release dates place the E5-4610 v3 in May 2015 and the E3-1505M v5 in October 2015.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from different Intel generations. The E3-1505M v5 uses Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-H codename, built on a 14 nm process. The E5-4610 v3 uses Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process. The process node gap explains part of the efficiency difference: the E3-1505M v5 achieves a higher clock speed at 45 watts, while the E5-4610 v3 needs 105 watts for a much lower base clock.

Transistor counts and die sizes reflect the different design goals. The E3-1505M v5 packs 2,300 million transistors on a 122 mm² die. The E5-4610 v3 packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The larger die on the E5-4610 v3 accommodates more cores and a larger L3 cache. Cache hierarchies differ accordingly: the E3-1505M v5 provides 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-4610 v3 provides 25 MB of shared L3 cache. Both share the same per-core L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) allocations.

Both processors support ECC memory, reinforcing their server/workstation positioning. The E3-1505M v5 includes integrated graphics, which is rare for a Xeon part and indicates a mobile-oriented design. The E5-4610 v3 omits integrated graphics entirely, consistent with a socketed server processor. The E3-1505M v5's Skylake architecture delivers higher instructions per clock than the older Haswell design, which helps explain why 4 cores can keep pace with 10 cores in multicore tests.

Market segments are identical on paper: both are listed as Server/Workstation. In practice, the BGA 1440 socket and 45-watt TDP on the E3-1505M v5 point to laptops and compact workstations, while the Socket 2011-3 and 105-watt TDP on the E5-4610 v3 point to rack servers and large workstations. The E5-4610 v3's quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe lanes reinforce that server role, while the E3-1505M v5's dual-channel memory and 16 lanes suit a more constrained mobile platform.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 is the faster CPU in every measured benchmark. It wins all six Cinebench tests, with margins between 2.2% and 2.3%. Its average benchmark score of 1817 exceeds the E5-4610 v3's 1777 by 40 points, and it ranks one percentile higher overall. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on compute performance should select the E3-1505M v5.

The E5-4610 v3 has compensating strengths that the benchmarks do not capture. Its 10 cores and 20 threads provide headroom for workloads that scale beyond what Cinebench measures, and its quad-channel memory bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth handles data-intensive tasks more efficiently. Its 25 MB L3 cache triples the E3-1505M v5's 8 MB allocation. Its 40 PCIe lanes support far more expansion than the E3-1505M v5's 16 lanes. These features make it the better fit for a socketed server platform where memory throughput and I/O capacity matter more than per-core speed.

For a mobile workstation or compact system where power efficiency and integrated graphics are priorities, the E3-1505M v5 is the obvious pick. Its 45-watt TDP, Skylake architecture, and HD Graphics P530 make it a self-contained solution. The E5-4610 v3, with its 105-watt TDP and no graphics, requires a discrete GPU and a larger power delivery system.

The verdict depends on the use case, not on benchmark superiority. The E3-1505M v5 wins on speed and efficiency, and it is the right choice for single-socket, power-constrained environments. The E5-4610 v3 wins on scalability and platform capability, and it is the right choice for multi-core server workloads that can use its extra cores, memory channels, and PCIe lanes. In a direct compute comparison, however, the E3-1505M v5 is the stronger processor, and the recorded data does not leave room for debate.