Intel Core i3-1000NG4 vs Intel Xeon W3520 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which CPU scores higher in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i3-1000NG4 scores 2989 versus the Xeon W3520's 2505, a 19.3% advantage, despite having half the cores and threads.

Q: Does the Xeon W3520 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon W3520 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-1000NG4 does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-1000NG4 features Iris Plus (48EU) integrated graphics. The Xeon W3520 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What process node is each chip built on?

A: The Core i3-1000NG4 is built on a 10 nm process with a 123 mm² die size. The Xeon W3520 uses a 45 nm process with a 263 mm² die and 731 million transistors.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i3-1000NG4 has an average benchmark score of 881, while the Xeon W3520 averages 862. Both sit at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel design. The Core i3-1000NG4 uses the Ice Lake architecture, specifically the Ice Lake-Y mobile variant with the Sunny Cove core microarchitecture. It is manufactured on Intel's 10 nm process. The Xeon W3520 belongs to the Nehalem family, codenamed Bloomfield, built on a much older 45 nm process. The process gap is substantial: the i3 uses a 10 nm node, while the Xeon uses 45 nm, which explains major differences in power efficiency and die size.

The i3-1000NG4 has a die size of 123 mm², while the Xeon W3520's die measures 263 mm², more than double the area. The Xeon packs 731 million transistors, a figure not listed for the i3. This reveals how far transistor density advanced between generations; the newer chip delivers competitive performance from a much smaller physical footprint.

Cache configurations differ notably. The i3-1000NG4 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon W3520 has 64 KB of L1 per core, also 256 KB of L2 per core, but doubles the shared L3 to 8 MB. The larger L3 on the Xeon is partly a product of its older, larger process and server-oriented design, yet it does not translate into benchmark superiority in the recorded data.

Memory support diverges as well. The i3-1000NG4 uses DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, while the Xeon W3520 uses DDR3 on a triple-channel bus. The i3 has no ECC support, but the Xeon supports ECC memory, a typical feature for its Server/Workstation market segment. PCIe generations also differ: the i3 supports Gen 3, while the Xeon supports Gen 2. Integrated graphics exist only on the i3, with Iris Plus (48EU); the Xeon has none.

The i3-1000NG4 fits the Intel BGA 1044 socket, a mobile package, and carries a 9 W TDP. The Xeon W3520 uses Intel Socket 1366, a desktop/server platform, with a 130 W TDP, over fourteen times higher. The Xeon's base clock is 2.67 GHz and boost clock is 2.93 GHz, while the i3 has a much lower base clock of 1.10 GHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The release dates show the generational gap: the Xeon W3520 was released in March 2009, while the i3-1000NG4 came in March 2020, roughly eleven years later. Both are end-of-life products in the database. The i3's part number is SRGM9, and the Xeon's is SLBEW.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i3-1000NG4 wins in every recorded benchmark category in the head-to-head comparison. That means the i3 is the stronger choice for both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, despite its lower core count. For tasks that rely heavily on single-core performance, such as everyday desktop responsiveness, older software that is poorly threaded, or lightly threaded productivity apps, the i3's lead in Cinebench R20 single-core (177 versus 148, a 19.6% gap) and R23 single-core (422 versus 353, a 19.5% gap) makes it clearly preferable.

For multi-threaded work, the i3 also wins, which is more surprising given that the Xeon has twice the cores and threads. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3 scores 301 against 252, a 19.4% advantage. In R20 multicore, it scores 1255 versus 1052, a 19.3% lead. In R23 multicore, it scores 2989 versus 2505, also a 19.3% lead. This suggests the i3's modern architecture and much higher boost clock (3.20 GHz versus 2.93 GHz) more than compensate for the Xeon's core advantage, at least in these Cinebench workloads.

The Xeon W3520's remaining strengths are platform-level rather than performance-level in the recorded data. It supports ECC memory, which matters for workstation reliability in error-sensitive computing. It uses triple-channel DDR3 memory, which can offer higher memory bandwidth in theory, though no bandwidth figures are recorded in the database. The server/workstation market segment may also have legacy platform features that the mobile i3 cannot match due to socket incompatibility. But if the question is pure compute performance in the benchmarks, the i3 wins everywhere.

The i3 also wins on power efficiency by a wide margin. The 9 W TDP versus 130 W TDP is a massive difference. Mobile users benefit from lower heat output, longer battery life potential, and simpler cooling requirements. The i3's integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU for basic display output, whereas the Xeon requires a separate graphics card.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every core specification. Core count is 2 for the i3-1000NG4 versus 4 for the Xeon W3520. Threads are 4 versus 8. Base clock is 1.10 GHz for the i3 and 2.67 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clock is 3.20 GHz for the i3 and 2.93 GHz for the Xeon. TDP is 9 W versus 130 W, a 121 W difference.

Socket types are entirely different: Intel BGA 1044 for the i3, Intel Socket 1366 for the Xeon. Architecture is Ice Lake versus Nehalem. Codename is Ice Lake-Y versus Bloomfield. Process node is 10 nm versus 45 nm. Die size is 123 mm² versus 263 mm². Transistor count is not listed for the i3, but the Xeon has 731 million.

Cache differs in L1 size (80 KB per core for the i3, 64 KB per core for the Xeon) and L3 size (4 MB shared versus 8 MB shared). L2 cache is identical at 256 KB per core. Memory support is DDR4 for the i3 versus DDR3 for the Xeon. Memory bus is dual-channel versus triple-channel. ECC memory support is false for the i3 and true for the Xeon. PCIe generation is Gen 3 versus Gen 2.

Integrated graphics: the i3 has Iris Plus (48EU); the Xeon has none. Market segment is Mobile versus Server/Workstation. Release date is March 2020 versus March 2009. Part numbers are SRGM9 and SLBEW. Both have no launch MSRP recorded in the database, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, and the Core i3-1000NG4 wins all five. The margins are remarkably consistent, ranging from 19.3% to 19.6%. This consistency suggests the performance gap is architectural, not workload-specific.

The largest single-core win is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3 scores 177 against the Xeon's 148, a 19.6% delta. The R23 single-core result is nearly identical in percentage terms: i3 at 422, Xeon 353, a 19.6% lead. Single-threaded performance is where the i3's modern Sunny Cove cores shine; the Xeon's lower boost clock of 2.93 GHz simply cannot keep up with the i3's 3.20 GHz boost.

Multi-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3 scores 301 versus 252, a 19.4% advantage. In R20 multicore, i3 scores 1255 versus 1052, a 19.3% lead. In R23 multicore, i3 scores 2989 versus 2505, a 19.3% lead. The Xeon's extra two cores and four threads do not overcome the i3's superior IPC and clock speed. The i3 wins R23 multicore by 484 points, a substantial margin for a 2-core part against a 4-core chip.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The i3 averages 881, while the Xeon averages 863. The i3's nearest rivals include the AMD Phenom II X6 1035T at 881, matching exactly, and the Intel Core i7-930 at 882, just 0.1% below. The Xeon's rivals include the Intel Core i5-3470T at 863, Intel Core i7-930 at 863, AMD A8-7650K at 863, and AMD PRO A12-8870E at 882, all within 0.3% to 0.2% of the Xeon's score. Both CPUs sit at the 23rd percentile, placing them in similar company despite the architectural gulf between them.

The Verdict

Pick the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 if you need efficient, modern performance in the Cinebench suite, and the data shows it wins every single head-to-head test. The consistent 19.3% to 19.6% margins across single-core and multi-core benchmarks make it the obvious choice for anyone running render workloads, rendering tasks, or lightly threaded productivity. The i3-1000NG4 delivers a 19.3% lead in R23 multicore over the Xeon's 2505 points, and a 19.6% lead in R20 single-core, all while using a mere 9 W TDP. Its integrated graphics, smaller die, and newer 10 nm process make it a far more modern package. The 9 W TDP versus 130 W TDP difference means the Xeon W3520 is also a workstation platform with ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3 support, but those features do not produce wins in the recorded benchmarks.

Consider the Xeon W3520 only if the platform-level attributes matter more than compute benchmarks. ECC memory support is the Xeon's clearest advantage, along with the larger 8 MB shared L3 cache, triple-channel DDR3, and larger 263 mm² die with 731 million transistors. None of these features change the outcome of the recorded Cinebench results. The Xeon is also a server/workstation chip on the Intel Socket 1366 socket, while the i3-1000NG4 is a mobile BGA 1044 chip with Iris Plus (48EU) integrated graphics.

For anyone comparing these two on performance alone, the Intel Core i3-1000NG4 wins outright with 5 wins and 0 losses in the head-to-head benchmarks. The Xeon's only advantages are platform features like ECC, triple-channel memory, and its older socket ecosystem. The benchmark database shows the i3 matching the Xeon's nearest rivals, such as the Intel Core i7-930 at 882, with an average score of 881 versus 862. Both are end-of-life products, but the i3-1000NG4 is simply the faster CPU in every measured test.