Atom C3858 vs Xeon E3-1265L v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E3-1265L v2 outperforms Atom C3858 by a small 9% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1592 | 1642 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.96 | 0.97 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Atom |
| Power efficiency | 6.81 | 11.21 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) | Goldmont (2016−2017) |
| Release date | 14 May 2012 (12 years ago) | 15 August 2017 (7 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $142 | $332 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E3-1265L v2 has 205% better value for money than Atom C3858.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 12 (Dodeca-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Bus rate | 5 GT/s | no data |
| Multiplier | no data | 20 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 672 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 12 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 12 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 83 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1155 | FCBGA1310 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| QuickAssist | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| FDI | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Boot | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| Identity Protection | + | - |
| SGX | no data | - |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4: 2400 |
| Maximum memory size | 32.77 GB | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | 2 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | Intel HD Graphics 2500 | no data |
| Quick Sync Video | + | - |
| Clear Video | + | no data |
| Clear Video HD | + | no data |
| Graphics max frequency | 1.15 GHz | no data |
| InTru 3D | + | no data |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858 integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | 3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
| USB revision | no data | 3 |
| Total number of SATA ports | no data | 16 |
| Max number of SATA 6 Gb/s Ports | no data | 16 |
| Number of USB ports | no data | 8 |
| Integrated LAN | no data | 4x10/2.5/1 GBE |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.24 | 2.96 |
| Recency | 14 May 2012 | 15 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 4 | 12 |
| Threads | 8 | 12 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 45 Watt | 25 Watt |
Xeon E3-1265L v2 has a 9.5% higher aggregate performance score.
Atom C3858, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 years, 200% more physical cores and 50% more threads, a 57.1% more advanced lithography process, and 80% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E3-1265L v2 and Atom C3858, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
