Winner
Intel Xeon E3-1270 v3
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E3-1270 v3 based on its value.
See full details Intel Xeon E3-1270 v3 vs v2 |
Released April, 2013
Intel Xeon E3-1270 v3
- 3.5 GHz
- Quad core
5.5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E3-1270 v3
 | Much better performance per watt 22.48 pt/W | | Much better performance per dollar 5.29 pt/$ |
| | Newer Apr, 2013 |
VS
Released May, 2012
Intel Xeon E3-1270 v2
- 3.5 GHz
- Quad core
7.8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the v2
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Lower typical power consumption 56.06W |
| | Lower annual commercial energy cost 60.44 $/year | | Lower annual home energy cost 16.62 $/year |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E3-1270 v3 vs E3-1270 v2 among all CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 7.8 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better performance per watt | 22.48 pt/W | vs | 3.52 pt/W | Around 6.5x better performance per watt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much better performance per dollar | 5.29 pt/$ | vs | 0.69 pt/$ | Around 7.8x better performance per dollar | |||
| Newer | Apr, 2013 | vs | May, 2012 | Release date 10 months later | |||
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 56.06W | vs | 65W | Around 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 60.44 $/year | vs | 70.08 $/year | Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 16.62 $/year | vs | 19.27 $/year | Around 15% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E3-1270 v3 vs v2
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E3-1270 v3 | vs | v2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.9 GHz | 3.9 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | Yes | Yes | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 32,768 MB | 33,556.48 MB | |
details | Xeon E3-1270 v3 | vs | v2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 0 | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 80W | 69W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | 16.62 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | 60.44 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 22.48 pt/W | 3.52 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 65W | 56.06W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | DMI | DMI | |
| Number of links | 0 | 1 | |
| Transfer rate | 5,000 MT/s | 5,000 MT/s | |
 Intel Xeon E3-1270 v3  Report a correction |  Intel Xeon E3-1270 v2 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $240 | $355 | |
| 3770 vs E3-1270 v2 | ||
 | VS | |
| $225 | $355 | |
| E3-1230 v2 vs E3-1270 v2 | ||
 | VS | |
| $264 | $355 | |
| 3770K vs E3-1270 v2 | ||
 | VS | |
| $336 | $355 | |
| E3-1270 vs E3-1270 v2 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $280 | $340 | |
| 4770 vs E3-1270 v3 | ||
 | VS | |
| $285 | $340 | |
| E3-1246 v3 vs E3-1270 v3 | ||
 | VS | |
| $248 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs E3-1270 v3 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $50 | $125 | |
| 5300 vs 3220 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
