Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 Comparison

Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 and Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 are two end-of-life server processors from Intel, separated by roughly two years of architecture evolution. The E5-2608L v3 belongs to the Haswell-EP generation, built on a 22 nm process with 6 cores and 6 threads. The E3-1558L v5 is a Skylake-H part, manufactured on a 14 nm node with 4 cores and 8 threads. Both are designed for power-sensitive server and workstation workloads, but their benchmark profiles reveal distinct strengths.

Where Each One Wins

The data from the database shows a clear sweep: the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. These include R15, R20, and R23 versions, each with both multicore and singlecore runs. The margins are consistent, ranging from 2.2 percent to 2.8 percent in favor of the E3-1558L v5. For multicore workloads, the E3-1558L v5 leads by 2.7 percent in Cinebench R15, 2.7 percent in R20, and 2.8 percent in R23. In singlecore tests, it leads by 2.2 percent in R15, 2.6 percent in R20, and 2.7 percent in R23.

This means the E3-1558L v5 is the better choice for any application where Cinebench-style rendering performance matters, whether the workload is heavily threaded or relies on single-core speed. The E5-2608L v3, despite having more physical cores (6 versus 4), cannot overcome the architectural advantage of the newer Skylake design. Its 6 threads are all physical, while the E3-1558L v5 has 4 cores with Hyper-Threading, providing 8 threads. Yet the per-core efficiency of the Skylake part more than compensates for the core count deficit.

The E5-2608L v3 does not win any of the head-to-head comparisons. Its best relative showing is in Cinebench R15 singlecore, where it trails by only 2.2 percent. The largest deficit is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where it falls behind by 2.8 percent. For users considering these two specific processors, the data points uniformly to the E3-1558L v5 as the faster part in every measured scenario.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different design generations and manufacturing technologies. The E5-2608L v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, on a 22 nm process. It contains 2,600 million transistors on a die size of 356 mm². The E3-1558L v5 uses Skylake, specifically Skylake-H, on a 14 nm process. Its transistor count is 2,300 million, but the die is much smaller at 171 mm². The newer process node allows for greater efficiency per transistor, which partially explains the performance advantage despite fewer cores.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The E5-2608L v3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The E3-1558L v5 also has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but its shared L3 cache is only 8 MB. The larger L3 on the E5-2608L v3 does not translate into a performance win in these benchmarks, indicating that the Skylake memory hierarchy and core design are more effective for the tested workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The E5-2608L v3 supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, providing 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The E3-1558L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but only over a dual-channel bus, yielding 34.1 GB/s. Despite having less than half the memory bandwidth, the E3-1558L v5 still outperforms in all tests. This suggests that the Cinebench workloads are not bandwidth-limited, or the Skylake memory controller is more efficient per byte transferred.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The E5-2608L v3 offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the E3-1558L v5 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. For systems requiring many expansion cards or high-throughput devices, the E5-2608L v3 is clearly superior. However, this does not affect the CPU benchmark scores.

The E3-1558L v5 includes integrated graphics in the form of Iris Pro Graphics P555, while the E5-2608L v3 has no integrated graphics listed. This makes the E3-1558L v5 a more self-contained option for systems without a discrete GPU.

Socket and physical mounting differ completely. The E5-2608L v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a large LGA socket typical of high-end server platforms. The E3-1558L v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, a ball-grid array that is soldered directly to the motherboard. This has practical implications for upgradeability and system design, but not for benchmark performance.

Clock speeds are another differentiator. The E5-2608L v3 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz with no boost clock listed. The E3-1558L v5 has a base clock of 1900.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The ability to reach higher frequencies under load is a major factor in the E3-1558L v5's singlecore wins.

Both processors support ECC memory, making them suitable for reliability-focused server environments. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 is the superior processor for computational workloads measured by Cinebench. It wins every single test, from R15 multicore to R23 singlecore. The margins are small, between 2.2 percent and 2.8 percent, but they are consistent across all six comparisons. The E3-1558L v5 achieves this with 4 cores and 8 threads, compared to the E5-2608L v3's 6 cores and 6 threads. The newer Skylake architecture, smaller 14 nm process, and higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz contribute to this result.

The E5-2608L v3 does have advantages in other areas. Its quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth is more than the E3-1558L v5's dual-channel 34.1 GB/s. Its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes dwarf the 16 lanes on the E3-1558L v5. For systems that need extensive I/O or high memory throughput, the E5-2608L v3 is the more capable platform. The E3-1558L v5 compensates with integrated graphics and a smaller, more power-efficient package.

For users choosing between these two specific processors, the decision hinges on the workload. If the primary task is CPU rendering or general compute as measured by Cinebench, the E3-1558L v5 is the better pick. If the system requires maximum memory bandwidth, many PCIe lanes, or a socketed CPU for future replacement, the E5-2608L v3 is the more logical choice. The data shows no scenario where the E5-2608L v3 wins a benchmark, so raw performance favors the E3-1558L v5 without exception.

The average benchmark score for the E3-1558L v5 is 1882, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The E5-2608L v3 has an average score of 1830, placing it in the 42nd percentile. These are close positions, but the E3-1558L v5 is ahead in both absolute score and percentile rank.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1558L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Does the E3-1558L v5 really beat the E5-2608L v3 in every benchmark?

A: Yes. According to the database, the E3-1558L v5 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins from 2.2 percent to 2.8 percent.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The E5-2608L v3 supports quad-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The E3-1558L v5 supports dual-channel memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the E5-2608L v3 and the E3-1558L v5 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the E3-1558L v5 has integrated graphics, specifically Iris Pro Graphics P555. The E5-2608L v3 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The E5-2608L v3 is built on a 22 nm process. The E3-1558L v5 is built on a 14 nm process.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result comes from Cinebench R23 multicore, where the E3-1558L v5 scores 6508 against the E5-2608L v3's 6329. This is a 2.8 percent advantage, the largest margin in any test. The R23 singlecore test shows the E3-1558L v5 scoring 918 versus 893, a 2.7 percent lead. These results indicate that the E3-1558L v5 is faster in both heavily threaded and single-threaded rendering workloads.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern. The E3-1558L v5 scores 2733, while the E5-2608L v3 scores 2658, a 2.7 percent difference. In R20 singlecore, the scores are 385 and 375 respectively, a 2.6 percent gap. The consistency of these margins across different Cinebench versions suggests a stable performance advantage rather than a test-specific anomaly.

Cinebench R15 results follow the same trend. In multicore, the E3-1558L v5 scores 655 versus 637 for the E5-2608L v3, a 2.7 percent lead. In singlecore, the scores are 92 and 90, a 2.2 percent gap. The R15 singlecore test is the closest result between the two processors, but the E3-1558L v5 still comes out ahead.

The E5-2608L v3's higher core count does not help in any of these tests. With 6 physical cores and no Hyper-Threading, it can only process 6 threads at once. The E3-1558L v5, with 4 cores and 8 threads, uses Hyper-Threading to handle more concurrent work. This likely explains its multicore wins despite fewer physical cores. The singlecore wins are attributable to the boost clock of 3.30 GHz, which the E5-2608L v3 lacks entirely.

The closest margins are in singlecore tests, where the architectural IPC advantage of Skylake over Haswell is partially offset by the E5-2608L v3's higher base clock of 2000 MHz versus 1900 MHz. However, the E3-1558L v5's ability to boost to 3.30 GHz proves decisive. In multicore tests, the thread count advantage of the E3-1558L v5 combines with its singlecore efficiency to maintain a consistent lead.

Overall, the head-to-head data is unambiguous. The E3-1558L v5 wins every recorded benchmark, and the deltas are tightly clustered between 2.2 and 2.8 percent. No test shows the E5-2608L v3 ahead, and no test shows a margin larger than 2.8 percent. For anyone evaluating these two processors purely on Cinebench performance, the E3-1558L v5 is the clear winner.