i5-1335U vs Xeon E5-2648L
Aggregate performance score
Core i5-1335U outperforms Xeon E5-2648L by a whopping 180% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1574 | 819 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | 99 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Raptor Lake-U |
| Power efficiency | 4.48 | 58.58 |
| Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Raptor Lake-U (2023) |
| Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | 4 January 2023 (1 year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $340 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U 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 | 8 (Octa-Core) | 10 (Deca-Core) |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Base clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 1.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 4.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 20480 KB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | 435 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,270 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U 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 | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | 2011 | FCBGA1744 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 15 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Speed Shift | no data | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Flex Memory Access | no data | + |
| Deep Learning Boost | - | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | no data | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR5-5200, DDR4-3200, LPDDR4x-4267 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 96 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel® Iris® Xe Graphics eligible |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.25 GHz |
| Execution Units | no data | 80 |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 4 |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 60Hz |
| Max resolution over eDP | no data | 4096 x 2304 @ 120Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 7680 x 4320 @ 60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 12.1 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.6 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 4.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 8 |
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 | 3.38 | 9.47 |
| Recency | 6 March 2012 | 4 January 2023 |
| Physical cores | 8 | 10 |
| Threads | 16 | 12 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 70 Watt | 15 Watt |
Xeon E5-2648L has 33.3% more threads.
i5-1335U, on the other hand, has a 180.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 10 years, 25% more physical cores, and 366.7% lower power consumption.
The Core i5-1335U is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2648L in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2648L is a server/workstation processor while Core i5-1335U is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2648L and Core i5-1335U, 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.
