Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results present a consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 wins every single head-to-head comparison, across all three Cinebench versions and both multi-core and single-core tests. The E3-1575M v5 never takes a lead in any of the six recorded benchmarks.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1535M v5 scores 677 against 665 for the E3-1575M v5, a margin of 1.8%. The single-core R15 result is similar, with 95 versus 93, a 2.1% gap. The pattern carries into newer test versions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the E3-1535M v5 posts 2824, while the E3-1575M v5 manages 2774. The single-core R20 scores are 398 and 391, respectively. Both R20 deltas sit at 1.8%.

The most recent benchmark generation, Cinebench R23, shows the same relationship. Multi-core scores are 6726 for the E3-1535M v5 and 6607 for the E3-157M v5. Single-core R23 results are 949 versus 932. Each delta is again 1.8% in favor of the E3-1535M v5.

The consistency is striking. Every recorded delta, except the R15 single-core test, lands at exactly 1.8%. The R15 single-core test shows a slightly larger 2.1% difference. This uniformity suggests a fixed performance relationship between the two processors, not a workload-dependent variation. The E3-1535M v5 is the faster part in every measured scenario, but the margins are narrow, never exceeding 2.1%.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark sweep, the division of wins is one-sided. The E3-1535M v5 claims all six head-to-head victories. The E3-1575M v5 records zero wins in the direct comparison.

For multi-threaded workloads, the E3-1535M v5 leads by 1.8% in R15, R20, and R23. This covers rendering tasks that scale across all eight threads. The E3-1575M v5 cannot recover ground in any of these tests. The multi-core advantage is small but consistent.

Single-threaded performance also favors the E3-1535M v5. The R15 single-core test shows the largest gap at 2.1%. The R20 and R23 single-core tests each show a 1.8% lead. This matters for applications with light threading, where clock speed and per-core efficiency dominate. The E3-1535M v5 has the edge in every such scenario recorded.

The average benchmark score reinforces the pattern. The E3-1535M v5 holds an average score of 1945, while the E3-1575M v5 averages 1910. That is a 35-point difference, or roughly 1.8% on the aggregate. The percentile ranking also slightly favors the E3-1535M v5, which sits at the 44th percentile among all CPUs, versus the 43rd percentile for the E3-1575M v5.

The data does not reveal any workload category where the E3-1575M v5 outperforms its sibling. The E3-1535M v5 wins across the board, from single-core latency-sensitive tasks to fully parallel multi-core rendering.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmarks, the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 is the superior processor. It wins all six head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (1945 versus 1910), and ranks one percentile point higher overall. The margin is small in every test, but it is uniform and never reversed.

Users prioritizing raw compute performance in Cinebench workloads should select the E3-1535M v5. The data shows no scenario where the E3-1575M v5 offers a performance advantage. The E3-1575M v5 does have a higher launch MSRP, but that does not translate into higher benchmark scores.

The E3-1575M v5 still delivers respectable numbers. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 6607 and single-core score of 932 are close to the E3-1535M v5's 6726 and 949. For applications where a 1.8% difference is negligible, either part would produce similar results. But for a strict performance ranking, the E3-1535M v5 leads.

The verdict is straightforward: the E3-1535M v5 wins on every recorded metric. The E3-1575M v5 cannot claim a single benchmark victory in this comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins zero.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the E3-1535M v5 leads by 2.1% (95 versus 93).

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The E3-1535M v5 has an average score of 1945, while the E3-1575M v5 averages 1910.

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

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the base and boost clocks for each?

A: The E3-1575M v5 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The E3-1535M v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz.

Q: How does the E3-1575M v5 compare to its nearest rivals in the database?

A: The E3-1575M v5 matches the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2404GE with a 0% delta, trails the Intel Xeon E-2314 by 0.1%, and beats the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 by 0.1% each.

Architecture Differences

Both processors belong to the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-H codename, and both use the 14 nm process node from Intel. They share the same transistor count of 2,300 million and mount on the Intel BGA 1440 socket. The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3.

The die size differs. The E3-1575M v5 has a die size of 171 mm², while the E3-1535M v5 measures 122 mm². This 49 mm² difference likely stems from the integrated graphics. The E3-1575M v5 uses Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the E3-1535M v5 uses HD Graphics P530. The larger die on the E3-1575M v5 accommodates the more capable Iris Pro graphics unit.

Memory support is identical: both support DDR3 and DDR4, use a dual-channel memory bus, and have a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. Both also support ECC memory and provide PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The generation label is the same for both: Xeon E3 (Skylake-H).

The release dates differ by about three months. The E3-1535M v5 launched on 2015-10-26, while the E3-1575M v5 launched on 2016-01-23. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers. The part numbers are SR2FM for the E3-1535M v5 and SR2QV for the E3-1575M v5.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. The base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the E3-1575M v5 and 2.90 GHz for the E3-1535M v5, a 0.10 GHz difference. The boost clocks differ by 0.20 GHz, with the E3-1575M v5 reaching 3.90 GHz and the E3-1535M v5 reaching 3.70 GHz.

The integrated graphics differ as noted: Iris Pro Graphics P580 versus HD Graphics P530. The die sizes differ at 171 mm² and 122 mm². The launch MSRP also differs, with the E3-1575M v5 listed at $1207 and the E3-1535M v5 at $623. The release dates are different, and the part numbers are different.

The TDP is identical at 45 watts for both. The cores, threads, cache sizes, memory support, memory bus width, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, architecture, process node, foundry, socket, and market segment are all the same. The multiplier is locked on both parts, and both are marked as end-of-life server/workstation processors.

The E3-1575M v5 carries a higher launch MSRP and a higher clock speed on paper, but the benchmark data shows the E3-1535M v5 delivering better Cinebench scores despite its lower clocks and lower launch MSRP.