Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 vs Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear, if narrow, picture: the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons against the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5. The margins are consistent but modest, ranging from a 1.1% advantage in Cinebench R15 single-core to a 1.6% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core. Every other test, including all three multi-core workloads, lands at a 1.5% delta in favor of the E3-1575M v5.

Starting with the multi-core results, the E3-1575M v5 scores 665 in Cinebench R15 while the E3-1558L v5 trails at 655. That 10-point gap translates to a 1.5% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds almost exactly: 2774 versus 2733, again a 1.5% difference. The most demanding workload, Cinebench R23 multi-core, shows 6607 against 6508, maintaining the same 1.5% separation. These are not dramatic differences, but they are consistent across every iteration of the benchmark suite.

Single-core performance tells a similar story with slightly more variation. In Cinebench R15, the E3-1575M v5 records 93 points versus 92 for the E3-1558L v5, a 1.1% edge. Cinebench R20 shows 391 against 385, widening the gap to 1.6%. Cinebench R23 closes with 932 versus 918, settling back at 1.5%. The consistency of these deltas suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent, likely tied to clock speed differences that manifest across both single-threaded and multi-threaded tasks.

The aggregate benchmark scores reinforce this narrative. The E3-1575M v5 carries an average benchmark score of 1910, while the E3-1558L v5 sits at 1882. That 28-point difference places the two processors in the same performance neighborhood, with the E3-1575M v5 holding a roughly 1.5% overall edge. Both CPUs land at the 43rd percentile among all recorded processors, meaning they occupy effectively the same competitive tier despite the E3-1575M v5's consistent wins.

Looking at nearest rivals provides additional context. The E3-1575M v5 matches the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE exactly at an average score of 1910, with a 0% delta. It also trades blows with the Intel Xeon E-2314 (1911, -0.1%), the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 (1908, +0.1%), and the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 (1907, +0.1%). The E3-1558L v5, meanwhile, sits in a slightly different peer group: the Intel Processor U300 (1881, +0.1%), the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 (1883, -0.1%), the Intel Xeon D-1531 (1885, -0.1%), and the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 (1879, +0.2%). The E3-1558L v5's closest rival, the E3-1545M v5, is itself 1.5% behind the E3-1575M v5, which places the entire comparison in perspective.

What is notable is how tightly clustered these scores are. The difference between the two processors is real but small, and the surrounding field shows similar margins between unrelated architectures. The data suggests that for most workloads, users would be hard-pressed to notice the difference without running a benchmark.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 is the faster processor in every measured test. Its six wins out of six head-to-head comparisons leave no ambiguity about which chip offers superior raw performance. However, the margins are consistently small, hovering around 1.5% across multi-core tests and never exceeding 1.6% in single-core workloads.

For users who prioritize maximum performance in Cinebench-style workloads, the E3-1575M v5 is the clear choice. The data shows no scenario where the E3-1558L v5 pulls ahead, even by a single point. Every recorded benchmark, from R15 to R23, in both single-core and multi-core modes, favors the E3-1575M v5.

That said, the E3-1558L v5 is not a weak processor. Its average benchmark score of 1882 places it within 1.5% of the E3-1575M v5, and both chips share the same 43rd percentile ranking among all CPUs. The E3-1558L v5 also matches its rival in core count, thread count, cache configuration, memory support, and power envelope, making it a viable alternative where the performance delta is acceptable.

The decision ultimately hinges on whether that 1.5% average advantage justifies choosing one over the other. From a pure performance standpoint, the data favors the E3-1575M v5 without exception. From a practical standpoint, the differences are minor enough that other factors, such as availability or system compatibility (both use the same socket), would likely carry more weight in a purchasing decision. The database does not record any scenario where the E3-1558L v5 wins, so the verdict from the numbers alone is unambiguous.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same foundational architecture: Skylake, built on Intel's 14 nm process node at the same foundry. The codename for both is Skylake-H, and both belong to the Xeon E3 (Skylake-H) generation. The transistor count is identical at 2,300 million, and the die size matches at 171 mm². These are not merely similar chips; they are architecturally identical at the silicon level.

The core configuration is also the same: 4 cores and 8 threads on both processors. The cache hierarchy matches perfectly, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is identical as well, with both chips supporting DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel memory bus, delivering the same 34.1 GB/s of memory bandwidth. ECC memory is supported on both.

The integrated graphics differ, which is one of the few architectural distinctions. The E3-1575M v5 pairs its CPU cores with Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the E3-1558L v5 uses Iris Pro Graphics P555. The database does not provide performance figures for either graphics solution, so the practical impact of this difference cannot be quantified here. What the data does show is that the P580 is a higher-tier graphics part, which may matter in workloads that leverage the integrated GPU.

Both processors use the Intel BGA 1440 socket and support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are classified as server/workstation parts that are now end-of-life. The production status and market positioning are identical, reinforcing the idea that these are two variants of the same fundamental design.

The release dates differ slightly: the E3-1575M v5 launched on January 23, 2016, while the E3-1558L v5 followed on May 30, 2016. The launch MSRP also differs, with the E3-1575M v5 at $1207 and the E3-1558L v5 at $396. However, the architectural core remains the same; the differences lie in clock speeds and graphics, not in the underlying design.

Specification Differences

The most significant specification difference lies in clock speeds. The E3-1575M v5 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The E3-1558L v5, by contrast, has a base clock of 1900.00 MHz (equivalent to 1.90 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. This 1.10 GHz base clock gap and 0.60 GHz boost clock gap explain the consistent performance advantage seen in the benchmarks.

The TDP is identical at 45 watts for both processors, which is notable given the substantial clock speed difference. The E3-1575M v5 achieves higher clocks within the same power envelope, indicating better binning or a more aggressive power delivery design.

The integrated graphics differ, as noted: Iris Pro Graphics P580 on the E3-1575M v5 versus Iris Pro Graphics P555 on the E3-1558L v5. The part numbers also differ: SR2QV for the E3-1575M v5 and SR2TU for the E3-1558L v5.

The launch MSRP differs as well: $1207 for the E3-1575M v5 and $396 for the E3-1558L v5. The release dates are also different, with the E3-1575M v5 arriving about four months earlier.

All other specifications, including cores, threads, cache sizes, memory support, memory bandwidth, ECC support, PCIe configuration, socket, process node, transistor count, die size, and market segment, are identical. The comparison between these two processors is essentially a study in clock speed and graphics tier, with everything else held constant.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 665 in Cinebench R15, 2774 in Cinebench R20, and 6607 in Cinebench R23, each with a 1.5% advantage over the E3-1558L v5.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap?

A: The E3-1575M v5 leads in all three single-core tests. The deltas are 1.1% in Cinebench R15 (93 vs 92), 1.6% in Cinebench R20 (391 vs 385), and 1.5% in Cinebench R23 (932 vs 918).

Q: Do both processors have the same power consumption?

A: Yes, both have a TDP of 45 watts. The E3-1575M v5 achieves higher clock speeds within the same power envelope.

Q: Are the cache configurations identical?

A: Yes, both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the main specification difference between the two?

A: The clock speeds are the primary difference. The E3-1575M v5 has a 3.00 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while the E3-1558L v5 has a 1.90 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The integrated graphics also differ: P580 versus P555.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The E3-1575M v5 has an average benchmark score of 1910, while the E3-1558L v5 scores 1882. Both rank at the 43rd percentile among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It takes all six head-to-head comparisons, with victories in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 across both single-core and multi-core tests. Its advantage is consistent, ranging from 1.1% to 1.6%, and it holds the higher average benchmark score of 1910 versus 1882.

The E3-1575M v5 also wins on clock speed, with a 3.00 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost compared to the E3-1558L v5's 1.90 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. It pairs these clocks with the higher-tier Iris Pro Graphics P580, whereas the E3-1558L v5 uses the P555. For any workload that responds to higher clock frequencies, whether single-threaded or lightly threaded, the E3-1575M v5 is the stronger option.

The Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 does not win any benchmark category in the recorded data. However, it is not without merit. Its average benchmark score of 1882 places it just 1.5% behind the E3-1575M v5, and it shares the same core count, thread count, cache configuration, memory support, TDP, socket, and process node. The E3-1558L v5 also has a lower launch MSRP of $396, which the database records, though pricing analysis is outside the scope of this comparison.

In practical terms, the E3-1558L v5 wins in scenarios where the tiny performance delta is acceptable and other factors take priority. Both chips are end-of-life and use the same socket, so system compatibility is identical. The E3-1558L v5's lower clock speeds may also translate to less heat generation, though the TDP is identical at 45 watts for both.

The data ultimately shows a clear winner in the E3-1575M v5, but the margin is small enough that the E3-1558L v5 remains a reasonable alternative for workloads that are not benchmark-sensitive. The choice comes down to whether the 1.5% average performance advantage justifies the specification differences, particularly the higher clock speeds and superior integrated graphics of the E3-1575M v5.