Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data paints a consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins every single head-to-head test in this comparison, taking all six recorded Cinebench runs. The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4, despite its higher base and boost clocks, trails by roughly 2% across the board. This is a narrow but uniform margin, not a fluke of one workload. The E3-1575M v5 leads in both multicore and singlecore tests, which indicates a fundamental efficiency advantage rather than a test-specific quirk.

For a workstation or server workload where every percentage point matters, the Xeon E3-1575M v5 is the data-backed choice. It posts higher scores in every recorded category, and its 45 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient than the 140 W E5-1630 v4. The E5-1630 v4 does not win any benchmark in the database, so users prioritizing raw performance in these specific Cinebench tests should look to the E3-1575M v5. However, the E5-1630 v4 retains a structural advantage in platform capabilities: quad-channel memory, 40 PCIe lanes, and a larger L3 cache. If those features matter more than a 2% benchmark delta, the E5-1630 v4 remains a defensible pick. The data, though, is unambiguous: the E3-1575M v5 is the faster processor in every measured scenario.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 holds an average benchmark score of 1910, while the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 has an average score of 1869. The difference is roughly 2.2% in favor of the E3-1575M v5.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 932 versus 912 for the E5-1630 v4, a margin of 2.1%. The R20 single-core test shows 391 versus 383, a 2% lead, and the R15 single-core test shows 93 versus 91, a 2.2% lead.

Q: What about multi-core performance?

A: The Xeon E3-1575M v5 also wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 6607 against 6464 for the E5-1630 v4, a 2.2% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 2774 versus 2714 (2.2% lead), and the R15 multi-core test shows 665 versus 651 (2.1% lead).

Q: Which CPU has the higher TDP?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 has a TDP of 140 W, while the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 has a TDP of 45 W. This means the E5-1630 v4 consumes significantly more power under load, which has implications for cooling and system power budgets.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 and the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 support ECC memory. This makes both viable for server and workstation environments where error-correcting memory is a requirement.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall CPU percentile ranking?

A: The Xeon E3-1575M v5 ranks in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon E5-1630 v4 ranks in the 42nd percentile. This places the E3-1575M v5 marginally higher in the overall distribution, consistent with its benchmark wins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations despite sharing the same 14 nm process node. The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically the Broadwell-EP codename, while the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 uses the Skylake architecture, under the Skylake-H codename. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the underlying design philosophies differ.

The E5-1630 v4 has a transistor count of 3,400 million on a 246 mm² die, whereas the E3-1575M v5 packs 2,300 million transistors on a smaller 171 mm² die. The smaller die and lower transistor count for the E3-1575M v5 suggest a more tightly integrated design, which aligns with its lower TDP of 45 W compared to the E5-1630 v4's 140 W.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The E5-1630 v4 offers 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E3-1575M v5 provides 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have identical per-core L1 and L2 caches at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. The larger L3 cache on the E5-1630 v4 is typical of a server-class Broadwell part, but it does not translate into a benchmark win in the recorded data.

Memory support separates the two as well. The E5-1630 v4 supports DDR4 memory exclusively, with a quad-channel memory bus delivering 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The E3-1575M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, but uses a dual-channel memory bus with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The E5-1630 v4 also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the E3-1575M v5 offers only 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. This makes the E5-1630 v4 the superior platform for memory bandwidth and expansion capability.

A notable difference is integrated graphics. The E5-1630 v4 has no integrated graphics, while the E3-1575M v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. This makes the E3-1575M v5 a more self-contained solution for systems that need display output without a discrete GPU.

Specification Differences

The two Xeon processors share a 4-core, 8-thread configuration, but diverge in nearly every other specification. The E5-1630 v4 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the E3-1575M v5 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The E5-1630 v4 is clocked higher, yet it loses every benchmark, which points to architectural efficiency differences.

Socket types are entirely different. The E5-1630 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a socketed desktop/workstation platform, while the E3-1575M v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, a soldered mobile-style package. This means the E5-1630 v4 is replaceable and upgradeable, whereas the E3-1575M v5 is permanently attached to the motherboard.

Memory support differs: the E5-1630 v4 runs DDR4 only, while the E3-1575M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The memory bus is quad-channel on the E5-1630 v4 versus dual-channel on the E3-1575M v5, with memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s respectively. PCIe lane counts also differ, at 40 lanes versus 16 lanes.

The integrated graphics situation is a clear differentiator: the E3-1575M v5 includes Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the E5-1630 v4 has none. The TDP gap is substantial, 140 W versus 45 W. The release dates are also different, with the E3-1575M v5 launching in January 2016 and the E5-1630 v4 in June 2016. Market segments differ as well: the E5-1630 v4 is classified as a desktop processor, while the E3-1575M v5 is listed as a server/workstation processor. Both are end-of-life products and both are multiplier-locked. The launch MSRP for the E5-1630 v4 is $406, while the launch MSRP for the E3-1575M v5 is $1207.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5, which wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. The margins are remarkably consistent, hovering around 2% in every category. This consistency suggests a systematic advantage rather than workload-specific behavior.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1575M v5 scores 665 against the E5-1630 v4's 651, a 2.1% lead. The single-core R15 test shows 93 versus 91, a 2.2% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test yields 2774 versus 2714, a 2.2% advantage, while single-core shows 391 versus 383, a 2% edge. In the latest Cinebench R23, the multi-core scores are 6607 versus 6464, again a 2.2% lead, and single-core scores are 932 versus 912, a 2.1% margin.

The E5-1630 v4 wins zero tests, while the E3-1575M v5 wins all six. The average benchmark scores corroborate this, with the E3-1575M v5 at 1910 and the E5-1630 v4 at 1869. The percentile rankings also favor the E3-1575M v5, which sits at the 43rd percentile versus the E5-1630 v4's 42nd.

The nearest rivals in the database provide context. The E5-1630 v4 is within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-9350K, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i5-1035G4, and 0.5% behind the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5. The E3-1575M v5 is exactly tied with the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE, 0.1% behind the Intel Xeon E-2314, and 0.1% ahead of both the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 and the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3. These rival scores show both chips are competitive within their performance class, but the E3-1575M v5 sits in a slightly stronger position.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database, making it the clear performance leader in Cinebench workloads. Its wins span both multi-core and single-core tests across R15, R20, and R23 versions. This makes it the preferred choice for applications that rely on CPU rendering, 3D modeling, or other tasks that scale with Cinebench-style performance. The 2% uniform lead suggests that the Skylake architecture is simply more efficient per clock than the Broadwell design, even when the latter runs at higher clock speeds.

The E3-1575M v5 also wins on power efficiency. Its 45 W TDP is a fraction of the E5-1630 v4's 140 W TDP, making it far more suitable for compact systems, laptops, or environments with strict thermal and power constraints. Its integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580 adds another win for systems that need GPU output without a discrete card.

The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4, despite losing every benchmark, wins in platform-level specifications. It offers quad-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth, more than double the E3-1575M v5's 34.1 GB/s. It also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16, enabling far greater expansion for GPUs, storage controllers, or network cards. The larger 10 MB L3 cache, versus 8 MB, is another technical advantage, even if it does not show up in the recorded benchmark scores.

The E5-1630 v4 also wins on upgradeability. Its Intel Socket 2011-3 platform allows the CPU to be replaced or upgraded independently of the motherboard, whereas the BGA 1440 package on the E3-1575M v5 is soldered and permanent. For users building a server or workstation where memory bandwidth, PCIe expansion, and serviceability are priorities, the E5-1630 v4 is the stronger foundation, even with its benchmark deficit.

In summary, the data shows a performance win for the E3-1575M v5 in every measured test, but a platform win for the E5-1630 v4 in memory bandwidth, PCIe capacity, and socket flexibility. The choice depends on whether raw Cinebench scores or platform capabilities matter more for the intended workload.