Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, taking all six recorded tests. The victories are consistent but narrow, with the largest margin being just 1.7%. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the E3-1575M v5 scores 665 against 654 for the E3-1545M v5, a 1.7% advantage. The single-core R15 result is closer: 93 versus 92, a 1.1% edge. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore gap remains at 1.7% (2774 against 2728), while the single-core difference is 1.6% (391 versus 385). The R23 results follow the same pattern: the E3-1575M v5 scores 6607 multicore versus 6497, again 1.7% ahead, and 932 single-core versus 917, a 1.6% lead.

These margins are small, but they are uniform across every workload. The data shows no scenario where the E3-1545M v5 pulls ahead, even by a single point. The average benchmark score tells a similar story: the E3-1575M v5 sits at 1910, while the E3-1545M v5 records 1879, a difference of roughly 1.6%. Both processors land in the 43rd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite the E3-1575M v5's consistent edge.

The nearest rivals for each chip further contextualize these scores. The E3-1575M v5 matches the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE at 1910 with a 0% delta, and it sits within 0.1% of the Intel Xeon E-2314 and the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4. The E3-1545M v5, at 1879, trails the Intel Processor U300 by 0.1%, the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 by 0.2%, and the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 by 0.2%. This places the E3-1575M v5 slightly ahead of its rival in the broader competitive landscape, though both remain in the same performance neighborhood.

The Verdict

The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 is the faster processor in every measured category. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, and its average score of 1910 exceeds the 1879 of the E3-1545M v5. The differences are not dramatic, ranging from 1.1% to 1.7%, but they are consistent. No test shows the E3-1545M v5 matching or exceeding its counterpart.

For workloads that rely on multi-threaded performance, such as rendering or compilation, the E3-1575M v5 offers a repeatable, if modest, advantage. The single-core results also favor the E3-1575M v5, which matters for lightly threaded applications where clock speed dominates. The E3-1545M v5, while marginally slower, still delivers comparable performance; its scores are within 2% across the board. Users who need every last point of performance should choose the E3-1575M v5. Those who prioritize the lower launch MSRP of $679 for the E3-1545M v5 against the $1207 of the E3-1575M v5 will find the performance gap is small, though the data does not quantify whether that price difference is justified.

The percentile ranking reinforces the similarity: both chips sit at the 43rd percentile, meaning neither is a standout in the broader CPU market. The E3-1575M v5 is the better chip within this pair, but the practical difference in real-world tasks is likely minimal given the narrow margins. The verdict is clear: the E3-1575M v5 wins on performance, while the E3-1545M v5 is the slower alternative with a lower launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same fundamental architecture. They are built on Intel's 14 nm process node, with the Skylake architecture and the Skylake-H codename. The transistor count is identical at 2,300 million, and the die size is the same at 171 mm². Both use the Intel BGA 1440 socket and belong to the Xeon E3 (Skylake-H) generation. There are no architectural differences in the core design, memory support, or integrated graphics. The integrated graphics are identical: Iris Pro Graphics P580. Both support DDR3 and DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both. PCIe connectivity is the same: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The only architectural distinction lies in the clock speeds, which are not a structural difference but a binning outcome. The E3-1575M v5 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The E3-1545M v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. This 100 MHz difference at both base and boost is the sole source of the performance gap. The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Neither chip has a 3D V-Cache. The memory bus, PCIe lanes, and graphics engine are all shared specifications.

In terms of production, both are end-of-life, and both were released on the same date. The part numbers differ (SR2QV for the E3-1575M v5, SR2QU for the E3-1545M v5), but this reflects the clock binning rather than a design change. The architecture is effectively the same silicon, with the E3-1575M v5 simply operating at higher frequencies.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two processors are limited to clock speeds and launch MSRP. The core count is the same at 4 cores and 8 threads. The TDP is identical at 45 watts. The base clock differs: the E3-1575M v5 runs at 3.00 GHz, while the E3-1545M v5 runs at 2.90 GHz. The boost clock also differs: 3.90 GHz for the E3-1575M v5 versus 3.80 GHz for the E3-1545M v5. The launch MSRP is different: the E3-1575M v5 launched at $1207, while the E3-1545M v5 launched at $679. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported.

All other specification fields are identical: socket, architecture, process node, foundry, transistors, die size, cache sizes, memory support, memory bus, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, integrated graphics, market segment, production status, and release date. The market segment for both is Server/Workstation. The part numbers are the only other distinguishing field, with SR2QV for the E3-1575M v5 and SR2QU for the E3-1545M v5. The specification sheet shows two nearly identical parts, separated only by clock binning and price.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 665 versus 654 in Cinebench R15, 2774 versus 2728 in R20, and 6607 versus 6497 in R23. Each win is a 1.7% margin.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The E3-1575M v5 leads in every single-core test. It scores 93 versus 92 in R15 (1.1% ahead), 391 versus 385 in R20 (1.6% ahead), and 932 versus 917 in R23 (1.6% ahead).

Q: Do the two processors share the same architecture?

A: Yes, both use the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-H codename, built on Intel's 14 nm process. They have identical transistor counts (2,300 million) and die sizes (171 mm²), with the same 4-core, 8-thread configuration.

Q: What is the difference in clock speeds?

A: The E3-1575M v5 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The E3-1545M v5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. This 100 MHz difference at each level accounts for the performance gap.

Q: Are the integrated graphics the same?

A: Yes, both processors include Iris Pro Graphics P580. There is no difference in the integrated graphics solution between the two.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The E3-1575M v5 has an average benchmark score of 1910, while the E3-1545M v5 averages 1879. Both sit at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins in every benchmark category recorded. Multi-threaded workloads show a consistent 1.7% advantage across R15, R20, and R23. This makes it the better choice for rendering, video encoding, or any task that scales across all 8 threads. Single-threaded performance also favors the E3-1575M v5, with margins of 1.1% to 1.6% depending on the test. Applications that rely on a single core, such as older games or lightly threaded productivity tools, will see a small but measurable benefit from the higher clock speeds.

The Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. Its only advantage in the data is the lower launch MSRP of $679, compared to $1207 for the E3-1575M v5. For users who prioritize the lower upfront cost and can tolerate a performance deficit of roughly 1.6% on average, the E3-1545M v5 is the more economical choice. The performance difference is small enough that in many real-world tasks, the two will feel similar. However, the data shows no workload where the E3-1545M v5 outperforms its counterpart.

For those who need maximum performance from this pair, the E3-1575M v5 is the only option that wins. For those who want to minimize spending, the E3-1545M v5 offers nearly the same performance at a lower launch MSRP. The choice comes down to whether the consistent, if modest, performance lead justifies the higher price. The benchmark data alone favors the E3-1575M v5 in every test.