CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-2643 v3 vs E3-1230 v3 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

5.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3  based on its cost to run and value.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 20 MB vs 8 MB 2.5x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Supports more RAM 786,432 MB vs 32,768 MB Supports 24x more RAM
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Higher clock speed 3.4 GHz vs 3.3 GHz Around 5% higher clock speed
More threads 12 vs 8 4 more threads
Much more l3 cache per core 3.33 MB/core vs 2 MB/core More than 65% more l3 cache per core
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Newer Jul, 2014 vs Apr, 2013 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 10.51 pt/$ vs 0.92 pt/$ Around 11.5x better performance per dollar
Much lower typical power consumption 65W vs 109.69W More than 40% lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year vs 118.26 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year vs 32.52 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2643 v3 vs E3-1230 v3

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

Xeon E5-2643 v3
3,275,000 MB/s
Xeon E3-1230 v3
4,300,000 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-2643 v3  vs
E3-1230 v3 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 3.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.7 GHz 3.7 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
FMA3
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
DDR
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum bandwidth 6,400 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 786,432 MB 32,768 MB

details

Xeon E5-2643 v3  vs
E3-1230 v3 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 8
L3 cache 20 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 3.33 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 2 1

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

power consumption

TDP 135W 80W
Annual home energy cost 32.52 $/year 19.27 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 118.26 $/year 70.08 $/year
Performance per watt 10.54 pt/W 32.83 pt/W
Typical power consumption 109.69W 65W

bus

Architecture QPI DMI
Number of links 2 0
Transfer rate 9,600 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Xeon E5-2643 v3
Report a correction
Intel Xeon E3-1230 v3
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus