Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

Intel Xeon W-3175X and Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 occupy opposite ends of the Xeon spectrum, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 10369 versus 10320, a mere 0.5% gap. This unusual parity stems from the fact that the W-3175X’s massive multi-threaded lead is offset by the E3-1565L v5’s specialized workload strengths in the PassMark suite. The data presents a clear dichotomy: one processor is a 28-core rendering monster, the other a low-power 4-core embedded workhorse with integrated graphics. Both sit at the 66th percentile among all CPUs, but their use cases could not be more different.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison, taking all six benchmark victories. Its dominance is absolute in multi-threaded workloads, where the 28-core/56-thread configuration delivers scores of 3900 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 16250 in R20 multi-core, and 38692 in R23 multi-core. The W-3175X also wins single-core tests decisively, posting 550, 2294, and 5462 in the respective R15, R20, and R23 single-core runs. This processor is built for sustained parallel compute — rendering, simulation, and any workload that scales across 56 threads.

The Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 wins none of the six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but its benchmark profile reveals strengths that the W-3175X’s Cinebench-only dataset cannot capture. The E3-1565L v5 excels in specialized PassMark operations: it scores 94771 in data compression, 2314 in data encryption, 6031 in extended instructions, and 14547 in floating-point math. These are workloads where the 4-core/8-thread design, with its 35W TDP and Iris Pro Graphics P580, can operate efficiently without the thermal and power overhead of a 255W flagship. The E3-1565L v5 is the choice for embedded or low-power server roles where single-threaded integer and encryption tasks dominate.

The use-case split is stark: the W-3175X for content creation and heavy compute, the E3-1565L v5 for power-constrained, specialized throughput tasks. The W-3175X’s 66th percentile ranking reflects its average across all benchmark types, but its Cinebench scores suggest it far exceeds that percentile in rendering-specific workloads. Conversely, the E3-1565L v5’s identical percentile masks its superior performance in the PassMark sub-tests where it competes.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Skylake architecture and 14nm process node from Intel, but they diverge dramatically in implementation. The W-3175X is built on Skylake-W, with a die size of 688 mm² containing 8,000 million transistors. The E3-1565L v5 uses Skylake-H, with a 171 mm² die and 2,300 million transistors — roughly one-quarter the die area and one-third the transistor count. This scale difference explains the core disparity: 28 cores versus 4 cores, 56 threads versus 8 threads.

Cache configurations reflect the core counts. The W-3175X provides 1 MB of L2 cache per core and 38.5 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E3-1565L v5 offers 256 KB of L2 per core and 8 MB of shared L3. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. Memory support also diverges: the W-3175X uses six-channel DDR4 with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the E3-1565L v5 supports dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s. The W-3175X exposes 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, versus 16 lanes on the E3-1565L v5.

The E3-1565L v5 includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, a feature the W-3175X lacks entirely. Socket and form factor differ completely: the W-3175X uses Intel Socket 3647, while the E3-1565L v5 is a BGA 1440 package, indicating a soldered embedded design. The W-3175X has an unlocked multiplier, the E3-1565L v5 does not. Power envelopes are equally divergent — 255W TDP for the W-3175X versus 35W for the E3-1565L v5, a 7.3x difference. The W-3175X launched in January 2019 with a launch MSRP of $2999, while the E3-1565L v5 launched in May 2016 with a launch MSRP of $417.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench comparisons show a consistent, almost geometric pattern of dominance. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the W-3175X scores 3900 against the E3-1565L v5’s 627, a 522% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a 525% lead — 550 versus 88. This single-core gap is notable because it cannot be explained by core count alone; it reflects the W-3175X’s higher 3.10 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost clocks versus the E3-1565L v5’s 2.50 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost.

The deltaPct values remain remarkably stable across all six tests. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 16250 versus 2614 (521.7%), and R20 single-core shows 2294 versus 369 (also 521.7%). Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the pattern at 521.5% (38692 versus 6226), and R23 single-core at 521.4% (5462 versus 879). This consistency suggests the performance ratio is largely fixed by architectural throughput per clock and thread count — the W-3175X delivers roughly 6.2x the performance in every Cinebench metric.

The E3-1565L v5’s PassMark results provide the counterpoint, though no direct head-to-head comparison exists for those tests in the data. Its data compression score of 94771 demonstrates exceptional specialized throughput, and its integer math score of 23335 shows strong per-core efficiency. The W-3175X’s Cinebench dominance does not extend to these workloads in the available dataset, leaving the E3-1565L v5 as the nominal winner in those unmeasured domains.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This is a 7x core advantage for the W-3175X.

Q: What is the performance gap in multi-core rendering?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the W-3175X scores 38692 versus the E3-1565L v5’s 6226, a 521.5% advantage. Similar gaps appear in R15 (522%) and R20 (521.7%) multi-core tests.

Q: Does the E3-1565L v5 have any benchmark wins?

A: In the six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the E3-1565L v5 wins zero. However, its PassMark results — including 94771 in data compression and 2314 in data encryption — show strengths in specialized workloads not covered by the head-to-head tests.

Q: How do the memory systems differ?

A: The W-3175X uses six-channel DDR4 with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the E3-1565L v5 supports dual-channel DDR3 or DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s. The W-3175X also provides 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16 on the E3-1565L v5.

Q: Do both processors feature integrated graphics?

A: No. The E3-1565L v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the W-3175X has no integrated graphics. This makes the E3-1565L v5 suitable for systems requiring a display output without a discrete GPU.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The W-3175X has a 255W TDP, while the E3-1565L v5 has a 35W TDP. The E3-1565L v5 also has a locked multiplier, whereas the W-3175X is multiplier-unlocked for overclocking.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 28 (W-3175X) versus 4 (E3-1565L v5)
• Threads: 56 versus 8
• Base Clock: 3.10 GHz versus 2.50 GHz
• Boost Clock: 4.30 GHz versus 3.50 GHz
• TDP: 255W versus 35W
• Socket: Intel Socket 3647 versus Intel BGA 1440
• Codename: Skylake-W versus Skylake-H
• Transistors: 8,000 million versus 2,300 million
• Die Size: 688 mm² versus 171 mm²
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core versus 256 KB per core
• L3 Cache: 38.5 MB shared versus 8 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR4 versus DDR3, DDR4
• Memory Bus: Six-channel versus Dual-channel
• Memory Bandwidth: 128.0 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s
• PCIe Lanes: 48 versus 16
• Integrated Graphics: None versus Iris Pro Graphics P580
• Multiplier Unlocked: Yes versus No
• Part Number: SRF6LQRDK versus SR2R8
• Launch MSRP: $2999 versus $417
• Release Date: 2019-01-29 versus 2016-05-30