Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents an unusually one-sided comparison. Across every Cinebench workload in the database, the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 finishes ahead of the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3. The E3-1545M v5 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with a consistent performance advantage of 2.6% in most tests. Its average benchmark score of 1879 places it in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs, while the E5-2608L v3 trails with an average of 1830 and a 42nd percentile ranking. The verdict is straightforward: for any workload measured by Cinebench, the E3-1545M v5 is the superior processor.

That said, the margin is narrow. A 2.6% delta is well within run-to-run variance for many real-world applications, but the consistency of the result across R15, R20, and R23 suggests a genuine architectural advantage rather than noise. The E5-2608L v3 does offer six physical cores, but it lacks Hyper-Threading, delivering only six threads. The E3-1545M v5 counters with four cores and eight threads, and its higher base clock of 2.90 GHz compared to 2.00 GHz appears to compensate for the core deficit. The E3-1545M v5 is the pick for users prioritizing raw Cinebench throughput, while the E5-2608L v3 remains the choice for those needing more physical cores, a larger shared cache, or quad-channel memory support.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1545M v5 wins every benchmark category recorded. In single-core tests, it leads by 2.2% in Cinebench R15 (92 vs. 90) and by 2.6% in both R20 (385 vs. 375) and R23 (917 vs. 893). In multi-core tests, the lead is a uniform 2.6% across R15 (654 vs. 637), R20 (2728 vs. 2658), and R23 (6497 vs. 6329). The consistency of the 2.6% delta in five of six tests indicates a fixed performance gap, likely stemming from the E3-1545M v5's higher clock speeds and newer architecture.

The E5-2608L v3 does not win any benchmark in this comparison. However, its strengths lie outside Cinebench. It supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, nearly double the E3-1545M v5's 34.1 GB/s dual-channel figure. It also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16, and a larger 15 MB shared L3 cache compared to 8 MB. These features point to workloads involving large datasets, multiple expansion cards, or memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, even if they are not reflected in the Cinebench scores.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and process nodes. The E5-2608L v3 is based on Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process, while the E3-1545M v5 uses Skylake-H on a 14 nm node. The die size difference is substantial: the E5-2608L v3 measures 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors, whereas the E3-1545M v5 is 171 mm² with 2,300 million transistors. The newer 14 nm process allows the E3-1545M v5 to pack a large number of transistors into a smaller die, contributing to its higher clock speeds and lower power draw.

Core and thread counts differ meaningfully. The E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads with no Hyper-Threading, while the E3-1545M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads with Hyper-Threading enabled. Cache hierarchies also diverge: both share the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes (64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively), but the L3 cache is 15 MB shared on the E5-2608L v3 versus 8 MB shared on the E3-1545M v5. The E5-2608L v3's larger cache and additional physical cores are offset by its lower base clock of 2.00 GHz, with no boost clock recorded. The E3-1545M v5 runs at 2.90 GHz base and boosts to 3.80 GHz.

Memory support further separates the two. The E5-2608L v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the E3-1545M v5 uses dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s. Both support ECC memory. The E5-2608L v3 has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E3-1545M v5 provides 16. The E3-1545M v5 includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, whereas the E5-2608L v3 has no integrated graphics. Sockets differ as well: the E5-2608L v3 fits Intel Socket 2011-3, and the E3-1545M v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, meaning they target different platform types: one a scalable server/workstation socket, the other a soldered mobile form factor.

Thermal design power is comparable but not identical: the E5-2608L v3 is rated at 52 W, the E3-1545M v5 at 45 W. Despite the lower TDP, the E3-1545M v5 delivers higher performance in every recorded test. Release dates also differ, with the E5-2608L v3 launching in September 2014 and the E3-1545M v5 in January 2016. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 has an average benchmark score of 1879, compared to 1830 for the Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3. The E3-1545M v5 also sits at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs, one point higher than the E5-2608L v3's 42nd percentile.

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

A: The E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no Hyper-Threading. The E3-1545M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads, with Hyper-Threading enabled.

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

A: The E5-2608L v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The E3-1545M v5 supports dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The E3-1545M v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. The E5-2608L v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the largest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest consistent gap is 2.6%, which appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The smallest gap is 2.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The E5-2608L v3 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The E3-1545M v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the E3-1545M v5. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1545M v5 scores 654 against 637 for the E5-2608L v3, a 2.6% lead. The single-core R15 result is closer: 92 vs. 90, a 2.2% advantage. This smaller single-core gap in R15 is the only test where the delta deviates from 2.6%; it suggests that the older R15 workload slightly compresses the clock-speed advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. Multi-core scores are 2728 for the E3-1545M v5 and 2658 for the E5-2608L v3, again 2.6% apart. Single-core results are 385 vs. 375, also 2.6%. The consistency across R20 indicates that the newer workload scales the same way for both chips, with the E3-1545M v5's higher clocks and newer architecture providing a steady edge.

Cinebench R23 mirrors R20. Multi-core: 6497 vs. 6329, a 2.6% lead for the E3-1545M v5. Single-core: 917 vs. 893, also 2.6%. The E3-1545M v5's boost clock of 3.80 GHz appears to be the decisive factor in single-threaded tests, while its Hyper-Threading helps it keep pace in multi-threaded workloads despite having two fewer physical cores.

The E5-2608L v3's six cores do not translate into a multi-core win. Its 2.00 GHz base clock, with no boost clock recorded, leaves it at a significant frequency disadvantage. Even in multi-core tests where raw core count might matter, the E3-1545M v5's eight threads and higher clocks produce higher scores. The E5-2608L v3 is not without merit, but its strengths lie in memory bandwidth, PCIe lane count, and cache size, none of which are exercised by Cinebench.

For buyers, the recorded data is unambiguous. The E3-1545M v5 outperforms the E5-2608L v3 in every Cinebench workload by a margin of 2.2% to 2.6%. The E5-2608L v3 remains relevant only for workloads that benefit from its quad-channel memory, 40 PCIe lanes, or 15 MB L3 cache. In pure CPU rendering tasks, the E3-1545M v5 is the faster part, and the benchmark database reflects that consistently across all three Cinebench versions.