Intel Core i3-1110G4 vs Intel Xeon W3550 Comparison

The Intel Xeon W3550 and the Intel Core i3-1110G4 come from opposite ends of the processor spectrum, both in time and in purpose. The Xeon W3550 is a server and workstation part from the Nehalem era, designed for multi-threaded throughput on a large desktop platform. The Core i3-1110G4 is a modern mobile chip, built for efficiency in thin laptops. The benchmark data reveals a surprising outcome: the newer, lower-power, dual-core chip consistently outperforms the older quad-core Xeon across every recorded test. This head-to-head comparison shows how far architecture efficiency has come, even when core counts are halved.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are entirely one-sided. The Intel Core i3-1110G4 wins all five recorded benchmark comparisons, with no victories for the Xeon W3550. The most telling result is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core i3-1110G4 scores 3202 against the Xeon W3550’s 2778. That is a 13.2% advantage for the mobile chip, despite having only half the cores and half the threads.

The pattern holds across all other tests. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core i3-1110G4 scores 1344 versus 1166 for the Xeon W3550, a delta of 13.2%. The single-core results follow the same trend. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core i3-1110G4 scores 452, while the Xeon W3550 manages 392, a 13.3% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core shows the Core i3-1110G4 at 189 and the Xeon W3550 at 164, again a 13.2% difference. Even in the older Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Core i3-1110G4 leads with 322 against 279, a 13.4% margin.

The consistency of these deltas, all hovering around 13.2% to 13.4%, suggests a fundamental per-clock efficiency advantage rather than a test-specific quirk. The Xeon W3550’s higher base clock of 3.07 GHz and boost of 3.33 GHz do not compensate for the architectural gap. The Core i3-1110G4 has a base clock of 1800.00 MHz, which is much lower, but its boost clock reaches 3.90 GHz. The data indicates that the newer core design extracts significantly more work per cycle, and the higher boost ceiling on the Core i3-1110G4 helps it close any frequency disadvantage.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the two chips are nearly identical in overall standing. The Xeon W3550 has an average benchmark score of 956, while the Core i3-1110G4 averages 945. That is a difference of roughly 1%, which places them in the same performance tier. The Xeon W3550 sits at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i3-1110G4 is at the 25th percentile. This near parity in average score, combined with the Core i3-1110G4 winning every head-to-head test, suggests that the Xeon W3550’s extra cores help in some aggregate workloads, but the Core i3-1110G4’s superior per-core performance carries the day in the specific Cinebench tests recorded.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Xeon W3550 uses the Nehalem architecture, with a codename of Bloomfield. It is manufactured on a 45 nm process node at Intel’s own foundry. The die contains 731 million transistors and measures 263 mm². In contrast, the Core i3-1110G4 uses the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-U, built on a 10 nm process node. The data does not list transistor count or die size for the Core i3-1110G4, but the process shrink alone indicates a major difference in density and power efficiency.

The memory subsystems also differ significantly. The Xeon W3550 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus. The Core i3-1110G4 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus, and it has a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Xeon W3550 does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure, but the triple-channel DDR3 configuration would be older and likely lower bandwidth than the DDR4 implementation on the newer chip.

Cache hierarchies show distinct designs. The Xeon W3550 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i3-1110G4 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger per-core L1 and L2 caches on the Core i3-1110G4 suggest a design focused on feeding each core with data quickly, which aligns with its higher single-core scores. The Xeon W3550’s larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB) may help in multi-threaded scenarios, but the benchmark data shows it is not enough to overcome the Core i3-1110G4’s other advantages.

The integrated graphics situation is stark. The Xeon W3550 has no integrated graphics at all. The Core i3-1110G4 includes Iris Xe Graphics G4. This is a major functional difference, as the Core i3-1110G4 can drive a display without a discrete GPU, while the Xeon W3550 requires a separate graphics card. The PCIe support also differs: the Xeon W3550 has PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i3-1110G4 has PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes available from the CPU.

ECC memory support is another differentiator. The Xeon W3550 supports ECC memory, which is typical for server and workstation parts. The Core i3-1110G4 does not support ECC. This makes the Xeon W3550 the only one of the two suitable for error-correcting memory setups, which is a critical feature for certain professional workloads.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the Core i3-1110G4 wins every single test in the head-to-head comparison. That includes multi-core tests, where the Xeon W3550 might have been expected to win due to its 4-core, 8-thread configuration versus the Core i3-1110G4’s 2-core, 4-thread setup. The data shows that the Core i3-1110G4 is faster in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core. This means that for the specific workload of Cinebench rendering, the Core i3-1110G4 is the better choice, regardless of core count.

The Xeon W3550 does have advantages outside the benchmark suite. It supports ECC memory, which the Core i3-1110G4 does not. It also uses a triple-channel memory bus, which may provide higher aggregate memory throughput in specific server-style workloads, though no bandwidth figure is recorded for the Xeon. The Xeon W3550 is a Socket 1366 part, which allows for a larger platform with potentially more expansion options, but the Core i3-1110G4 is a BGA 1598 part, meaning it is soldered to the motherboard and not upgradable.

In terms of market segment, the Xeon W3550 is aimed at Server/Workstation use, while the Core i3-1110G4 is a Mobile part. This suggests that the Xeon W3550 is intended for always-powered, high-reliability systems, while the Core i3-1110G4 is designed for battery-powered laptops. The power envelope reflects this: the Xeon W3550 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the Core i3-1110G4 has a TDP of just 15 watts. The Core i3-1110G4 is clearly the winner for any application where power consumption is a factor.

For single-core performance, which is critical for everyday tasks like web browsing and office applications, the Core i3-1110G4 leads by a consistent margin. The data shows single-core Cinebench R20 and R23 scores that are 13.2% and 13.3% higher, respectively. This means the Core i3-1110G4 is likely snappier in most interactive workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every recorded specification. The Xeon W3550 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-1110G4 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 3.07 GHz for the Xeon and 1800.00 MHz for the Core i3-1110G4. Boost clocks are 3.33 GHz for the Xeon and 3.90 GHz for the Core i3-1110G4. The TDP is 130 watts for the Xeon and 15 watts for the Core i3-1110G4.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the Core i3-1110G4 uses Intel BGA 1598. The process nodes are 45 nm for the Xeon and 10 nm for the Core i3-1110G4. Cache configurations differ, with the Xeon having 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3, versus the Core i3-1110G4’s 96 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR3 for the Xeon and DDR4 for the Core i3-1110G4, with memory buses of triple-channel and dual-channel, respectively.

ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the Core i3-1110G4. PCIe versions are Gen 2 for the Xeon and Gen 4 for the Core i3-1110G4. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i3-1110G4 has Iris Xe Graphics G4. The market segments are Server/Workstation for the Xeon and Mobile for the Core i3-1110G4. Production status is End-of-life for the Xeon and Active for the Core i3-1110G4. The release dates are 2009-08-08 for the Xeon and 2020-09-01 for the Core i3-1110G4. Neither processor has a recorded launch MSRP, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon W3550 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-1110G4 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Core i3-1110G4 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core i3-1110G4 does not support ECC memory. The Xeon W3550 does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Xeon W3550 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the Core i3-1110G4 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core i3-1110G4 scores 3202, beating the Xeon W3550’s 2778, a 13.2% advantage.

Q: Does the Xeon W3550 have integrated graphics?

A: No, the Xeon W3550 has no integrated graphics. The Core i3-1110G4 includes Iris Xe Graphics G4.

Q: What are the memory types supported?

A: The Xeon W3550 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus. The Core i3-1110G4 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and has a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-1110G4 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, despite having half the cores and threads of the Xeon W3550. It wins multi-core and single-core tests by a consistent margin of roughly 13%. The Core i3-1110G4 also offers integrated graphics, a much lower TDP of 15 watts versus 130 watts, newer PCIe Gen 4 support, and a more modern 10 nm process. For any workload measured here, the Core i3-1110G4 is the clear choice.

The Xeon W3550 retains value only in specific, narrow contexts. It supports ECC memory, which is absent on the Core i3-1110G4. It uses a triple-channel memory bus, which might offer advantages in memory-intensive server tasks, though no bandwidth figure is recorded. Its Socket 1366 platform allows for a workstation class system, but the production status is end-of-life. The Core i3-1110G4 is active and designed for mobile use.

For a user building a new system, the Core i3-1110G4 is the better performer in the tested benchmarks, with the added benefit of integrated graphics and dramatically lower power draw. The Xeon W3550 should only be considered if ECC memory support is a hard requirement, and even then, the benchmark data shows it will be slower in Cinebench-style workloads. The verdict from the recorded measurements is that the newer, smaller, more efficient chip beats the older workstation part across the board. The only reasons to choose the Xeon W3550 are features not measured in these benchmarks, such as ECC support and the triple-channel memory bus. For raw performance as recorded, the Core i3-1110G4 wins every test.