Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 wins every single head-to-head comparison, taking all six recorded Cinebench tests. The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 does not secure a single victory in the direct matchups. The margins are consistent, ranging from 1.8% to 2.1% in favor of the mobile Xeon.

Starting with multi-core workloads, the E3-1535M v5 posts a Cinebench R15 score of 677 against the E5-2620 v3's 664, a 1.9% advantage. In Cinebench R20, the gap remains identical at 1.9%, with scores of 2824 and 2769 respectively. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the same 1.9% delta, with the E3-1535M v5 scoring 6726 versus 6595 for the E5-2620 v3. These results are notable because the E5-2620 v3 has a core count advantage (6 cores versus 4), yet it still trails in every multi-threaded test.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margins are slightly more pronounced. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the E3-1535M v5 scores 95 against the E5-2620 v3's 93, a 2.1% lead. Cinebench R20 single-core shows a 1.8% gap (398 versus 391), and Cinebench R23 single-core closes with a 1.9% difference (949 versus 931). The consistency of these deltas across all six tests suggests a systemic advantage for the newer architecture rather than any workload-specific anomaly.

The aggregate benchmark score reinforces this picture. The E3-1535M v5 averages 1945 points across all recorded benchmarks, placing it in the 44th percentile of all CPUs. The E5-2620 v3 averages 1907 points, sitting at the 43rd percentile. While a one-percentile difference is modest, the head-to-head sweep is decisive. Looking at the nearest rivals for context, the E5-2620 v3's average score of 1907 puts it within 0.2% of the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 (1908) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910). The E3-1535M v5, meanwhile, sits just 0.1% behind the Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5 (1947) and 0.2% behind the Intel Core i5-1035G7 (1948).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 records zero wins in the direct matchups.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two processors?

A: The largest single advantage for the E3-1535M v5 is 2.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core. The smallest is 1.8% in Cinebench R20 single-core. Multi-core tests consistently show a 1.9% gap across all three Cinebench versions.

Q: Does the E5-2620 v3's higher core count help it in multi-core tests?

A: No. Despite having 6 cores and 12 threads versus the E3-1535M v5's 4 cores and 8 threads, the E5-2620 v3 still loses every multi-core test. The E3-1535M v5 scores 677 versus 664 in R15, 2824 versus 2769 in R20, and 6726 versus 6595 in R23.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The E3-1535M v5 has an average benchmark score of 1945, placing it in the 44th percentile of all CPUs. The E5-2620 v3 averages 1907, placing it in the 43rd percentile. The E3-1535M v5 is roughly 2% higher in average score.

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The E3-1535M v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The E5-2620 v3 has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The E3-1535M v5 is faster in both metrics.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The E3-1535M v5 has a TDP of 45 watts, while the E5-2620 v3 has a TDP of 85 watts. The E5-2620 v3 consumes nearly double the power envelope of the E3-1535M v5.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architecture generations, which explains much of the performance delta. The E5-2620 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP codename, and uses a 22 nm process node. The E3-1535M v5 uses the newer Skylake architecture with the Skylake-H codename and a 14 nm process node. This process shrink is significant: the E3-1535M v5 packs 2,300 million transistors into a die size of 122 mm², while the E5-2620 v3 contains 2,600 million transistors spread across a much larger 356 mm² die. The newer node allows the E3-1535M v5 to achieve higher clock speeds while consuming less power.

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The E5-2620 v3 offers 6 cores and 12 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. Its shared L3 cache is 15 MB. The E3-1535M v5 provides 4 cores and 8 threads, with the same 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite having less cache and fewer cores, the E3-1535M v5 still outperforms the E5-2620 v3 in every test, indicating that architecture efficiency and clock speed outweigh raw resource counts.

Memory architecture is another major divergence. The E5-2620 v3 supports DDR4 memory through a quad-channel interface, delivering a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The E3-1535M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but through a dual-channel interface, capping memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s. The E5-2620 v3's memory bandwidth is nearly double that of the E3-1535M v5, yet this advantage does not translate into benchmark victories.

PCIe capabilities also differ. The E5-2620 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the E3-1535M v5 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). Both processors support ECC memory. The E3-1535M v5 includes integrated HD Graphics P530, while the E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics. The E5-2620 v3 uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, while the E3-1535M v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, meaning the latter is soldered rather than socketed.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification. The E5-2620 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the E3-1535M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.20 GHz versus 3.70 GHz, favoring the E3-1535M v5 in both cases. TDP differs dramatically: 85 watts for the E5-2620 v3 versus 45 watts for the E3-1535M v5.

Cache allocation varies, with the E5-2620 v3 featuring 15 MB of shared L3 cache versus 8 MB for the E3-1535M v5. L1 and L2 cache are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively. Memory support differs in both channel width and bandwidth: the E5-2620 v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s, while the E3-1535M v5 uses dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s.

The process nodes differ, with the E5-2620 v3 on 22 nm and the E3-1535M v5 on 14 nm. Transistor counts are 2,600 million versus 2,300 million, and die sizes are 356 mm² versus 122 mm². The E5-2620 v3 has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E3-1535M v5 has 16. The E5-2620 v3 lacks integrated graphics, while the E3-1535M v5 includes HD Graphics P530. Release dates are separated by roughly 14 months: the E5-2620 v3 launched in September 2014, the E3-1535M v5 in October 2015. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The data favors the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 across all measured benchmarks. The average benchmark score of 1945 versus 1907, combined with a 6-0 sweep in head-to-head tests, makes the case straightforward. The E3-1535M v5 achieves this with four cores instead of six, less L3 cache, and under half the TDP. The 14 nm Skylake architecture and higher clock speeds (2.90 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) more than compensate for the resource deficit.

The E5-2620 v3's advantages in memory bandwidth (59.7 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s), PCIe lanes (40 versus 16), and core count do not produce wins in any Cinebench test. The quad-channel memory controller and larger L3 cache are significant specifications on paper, but the benchmark results show they do not overcome the architectural advantages of the newer Skylake design.

The launch MSRP of the E3-1535M v5 was $623, while the E5-2620 v3 launched at $417. The E3-1535M v5's higher launch price is not reflected in a proportional performance advantage; the measured deltas are all under 2.1%. However, the E3-1535M v5 delivers superior performance per watt, as its 45 watt TDP achieves higher scores than the 85 watt E5-2620 v3 in every test.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1535M v5 wins in every benchmark category recorded. Its single-core advantage, ranging from 1.8% to 2.1% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, makes it the better choice for lightly threaded workloads. Its multi-core wins, all at 1.9%, mean it also handles heavily threaded tasks better despite having fewer cores. The E3-1535M v5 is also the more power-efficient option, with a 45 watt TDP that allows deployment in lower-power systems.

The E5-2620 v3 has no benchmark wins to claim, but its specification sheet indicates where it might excel in unmeasured scenarios. The 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth, quad-channel DDR4 support, and 40 PCIe lanes suggest the E5-2620 v3 is designed for memory-intensive and I/O-heavy server workloads that do not appear in the Cinebench suite. Its 15 MB of L3 cache and 6-core configuration could benefit workloads that scale with cache capacity or core count beyond what these benchmarks capture.

For users selecting between these two end-of-life processors based on the recorded data, the E3-1535M v5 is the clear performance winner. The E5-2620 v3 remains relevant only for systems that require its socket type, memory bandwidth, or PCIe lane count, none of which translate into Cinebench performance advantages. The E3-1535M v5's integrated graphics also provides a feature the E5-2620 v3 lacks entirely, making it the more complete package for systems without a discrete GPU.