Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 and the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 are near-identical in benchmark performance, despite being built on different architectures with different core counts. The data shows the E3-1575M v5 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 0.0% to 0.2%. This is a classic case where specification differences—cores, clocks, memory channels, and power—do not translate into meaningful application-level performance gaps in the tested Cinebench workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The E3-1575M v5 claims victory in every single benchmark comparison, but the largest margin is a mere 0.2%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E3-1575M v5 scores 665 against the E5-2620 v3’s 664, a 0.2% advantage. The single-core results are identical at 93 points for both processors, resulting in a 0.0% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 2774 for the E3-1575M v5 and 2769 for the E5-2620 v3, again a 0.2% difference. The R20 single-core scores are tied at 391.

The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23, the most demanding workload in the data set. The E3-1575M v5 posts 6607 in multi-core, while the E5-2620 v3 posts 6595, a 0.2% gap. The single-core R23 result is 932 versus 931, a 0.1% difference. Across all six tests, the E3-1575M v5 wins outright five times and ties once, giving it a perfect 6–0 record in the head-to-head table.

However, these deltas are within the noise of typical benchmark variance. The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the E3-1575M v5 averages 1910, while the E5-2620 v3 averages 1907. Both processors sit at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier. The nearest rivals list reinforces this: the E3-1575M v5 is separated from the E5-2620 v3 by only 0.1% in average score, and the E5-2620 v3 is separated from the E3-1575M v5 by 0.2%. In practical terms, these two chips are functionally equivalent in synthetic rendering workloads.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear conclusion: neither processor has a meaningful performance advantage over the other in Cinebench workloads. The E3-1575M v5 wins all six head-to-head tests, but with deltas between 0.0% and 0.2%, these wins are statistical ties. If you are choosing strictly on benchmark scores, the E3-1575M v5 is the nominal winner, but the margin is negligible.

The E5-2620 v3 counters with structural advantages that do not appear in these benchmarks. It has 6 cores and 12 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads, a 50% core advantage. It also offers quad-channel memory support with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly double the E3-1575M v5’s 34.1 GB/s. The E5-2620 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the E3-1575M v5 provides only 16. For workloads that scale with memory bandwidth or require extensive PCIe connectivity, the E5-2620 v3 is the better choice, even if Cinebench does not reflect it.

The E3-1575M v5 wins on clocks and efficiency. It boosts to 3.90 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, and its 45 W TDP is nearly half the E5-2620 v3’s 85 W. It also includes integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, which the E5-2620 v3 lacks entirely. For single-threaded responsiveness, lower power draw, or a compact BGA 1440 platform, the E3-1575M v5 is the superior option. Choose the E3-1575M v5 for efficiency and portability; choose the E5-2620 v3 for core count, memory bandwidth, and PCIe expansion.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and process nodes. The E3-1575M v5 uses Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process, while the E5-2620 v3 uses Haswell on a 22 nm process. The E3-1575M v5 integrates 2,300 million transistors on a 171 mm² die, whereas the E5-2620 v3 packs 2,600 million transistors on a much larger 356 mm² die. This explains the E5-2620 v3’s higher core count despite the older node.

The cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache is where they diverge. The E3-1575M v5 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the E5-2620 v3 has 15 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 cache on the E5-2620 v3 is consistent with its server-oriented Haswell-EP design, which typically targets data-heavy workloads.

Memory support also differs. The E3-1575M v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The E5-2620 v3 supports only DDR4 but in a quad-channel configuration, delivering 59.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, a key requirement for server workloads. The PCIe lanes also differ, with the E3-1575M v5 offering 16 lanes and the E5-2620 v3 offering 40 lanes, both Gen 3.

The E3-1575M v5 features integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics. This is a notable feature gap, as the E3-1575M v5 can drive a display without a discrete GPU, while the E5-2620 v3 requires one. The sockets are also incompatible: the E3-1575M v5 uses Intel BGA 1440, and the E5-2620 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Is there a significant performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: No. The E3-1575M v5 scores 6607 and the E5-2620 v3 scores 6595, a difference of just 0.2%, which is effectively a tie.

Q: Does the E3-1575M v5 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. The E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: Which processor supports more memory bandwidth?

A: The E5-2620 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, compared to the E3-1575M v5’s dual-channel 34.1 GB/s.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The E3-1575M v5 has an average benchmark score of 1910, and the E5-2620 v3 has an average score of 1907. Both rank in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The E3-1575M v5 boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the E5-2620 v3 boosts to 3.20 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The E3-1575M v5 wins every Cinebench benchmark, but the margins are trivial. Its real wins are in efficiency and platform features. With a 45 W TDP versus 85 W, it draws significantly less power. Its 3.90 GHz boost clock is 0.70 GHz higher than the E5-2620 v3’s 3.20 GHz, which can benefit lightly threaded tasks. The integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580 means it can operate without a discrete GPU, making it suitable for compact or low-power systems. Its 14 nm process also gives it a die-size advantage, at 171 mm² versus 356 mm².

The E5-2620 v3 wins on raw capability and expansion. Its 6 cores and 12 threads provide more parallel execution resources, which could help in workloads that are not limited by memory bandwidth. The 15 MB L3 cache is nearly double the E3-1575M v3’s 8 MB, potentially improving cache hit rates in data-heavy applications. The quad-channel memory interface with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth is a massive advantage for memory-bound tasks. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for far more expansion cards, GPUs, or NVMe drives than the E3-1575M v5’s 16 lanes.

In short, the E3-1575M v5 is the better choice for single-socket, low-power, mobile or embedded systems where space and thermals are constrained. The E5-2620 v3 is the better choice for a traditional server or workstation socket where memory bandwidth, core count, and PCIe scalability matter more than clock speed or power consumption.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The E3-1575M v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the E5-2620 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.90 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP is 45 W for the E3-1575M v5 and 85 W for the E5-2620 v3. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1440 versus Intel Socket 2011-3.

The process node is 14 nm for the E3-1575M v5 and 22 nm for the E5-2620 v3. Transistor counts are 2,300 million versus 2,600 million, and die sizes are 171 mm² versus 356 mm². L3 cache is 8 MB shared versus 15 MB shared. Memory support is DDR3/DDR4 dual-channel with 34.1 GB/s for the E3-1575M v5, versus DDR4 quad-channel with 59.7 GB/s for the E5-2620 v3. PCIe lanes are 16 versus 40, both Gen 3. The E3-1575M v5 has integrated Iris Pro Graphics P580; the E5-2620 v3 has none. The release dates are January 2016 for the E3-1575M v5 and September 2014 for the E5-2620 v3. The launch MSRP is $1207 for the E3-1575M v5 and $417 for the E5-2620 v3.