Intel Core i3-1110G4 vs Intel Xeon W3570 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the Intel Core i3-1110G4 wins every single recorded head-to-head comparison against the Intel Xeon W3570. Across five Cinebench tests, the margin of victory is remarkably uniform, hovering around 13% in favor of the newer mobile chip. This consistency suggests a fundamental performance advantage that is not workload-dependent but rather a baseline characteristic of the two architectures.

In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Core i3-1110G4 scores 322 points against the Xeon W3570's 279 points, a delta of 13.4%. This is the largest percentage gap in the dataset. The Xeon, despite having twice the core count and twice the thread count, cannot overcome the sheer inefficiency of its aging design. Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core i3 scores 1344 versus 1165, a 13.3% advantage. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Core i3 posts 3202 against the Xeon's 2776, again a 13.3% lead.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core i3-1110G4 achieves 189 points, while the Xeon W3570 manages only 164, a 13.2% difference. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the Core i3 at 452 points versus 392 for the Xeon, another 13.3% gap. For a processor released over a decade later, this single-core dominance is expected, but the magnitude is noteworthy. The Xeon's boost clock of 3.47 GHz is actually higher than the Core i3's base clock of 1.80 GHz, yet the Core i3's boost clock of 3.90 GHz, combined with a much newer microarchitecture, delivers a decisive edge.

What is perhaps most striking is the absence of any benchmark where the Xeon W3570 emerges victorious. The winsA field in the database confirms this: zero wins for the Xeon, five wins for the Core i3. The average benchmark score further contextualizes this. The Xeon W3570 has an average score of 955, while the Core i3-1110G4 sits at 945. This is a curious inversion. Despite losing every head-to-head test, the Xeon's average score is slightly higher. This can be attributed to the composition of the average, which likely includes other tests not present in the head-to-head array, but the data as presented shows a clear competitive hierarchy in the shared Cinebench suite.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded data, the Core i3-1110G4 wins in every measurable category within this comparison. There is no use case, no workload, no specific benchmark where the Xeon W3570 takes the lead. The Core i3's advantage is comprehensive, spanning both multi-threaded and single-threaded performance.

For multi-threaded applications such as video rendering, 3D modeling, or batch processing, the Core i3-1110G4's 13.3% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore (3202 versus 2776) suggests it will complete these tasks faster. This is counterintuitive given the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads versus the Core i3's 2 cores and 4 threads, but the data does not lie. The newer architecture's instructions per clock (IPC) advantage, combined with its higher boost clock, more than compensates for the core deficit.

For single-threaded workloads, such as older games, spreadsheet calculations, or lightly threaded productivity apps, the Core i3-1110G4 again wins. Its 452 points in Cinebench R23 single-core versus the Xeon's 392 points, a 13.3% margin, indicates snappier responsiveness in tasks that rely on one core. The Xeon W3570, despite its server/workstation market segment, offers no scenario in this dataset where it outperforms the mobile Core i3.

The only nuance is the ambiguity of the average benchmark score. The Xeon's average of 955 versus the Core i3's 945 could imply that in a broader test suite, the Xeon might win some tests. However, within the recorded head-to-head data, the Core i3 is the clear winner across the board. The Xeon's higher average is a statistical artifact of the specific tests included in that metric, not evidence of superiority in any tested workload.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two processors is vast, explaining the consistent performance gap. The Intel Xeon W3570 is based on the Nehalem architecture, with the codename Bloomfield, fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process node. It contains 731 million transistors on a die size of 263 mm². The Intel Core i3-1110G4, by contrast, uses the Tiger Lake architecture, codename Tiger Lake-U, built on a 10 nm process node. The database does not list transistor count or die size for the Core i3, but the process node difference alone is a generational leap.

Core and thread configurations differ dramatically. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3 offers 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite having half the cores, the Core i3 wins every benchmark. Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i3 has a larger L1 at 96 KB per core, a substantially larger L2 at 1.25 MB per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. The larger per-core L2 cache in the Tiger Lake design likely contributes to its superior single-thread performance.

Memory support reflects their respective eras. The Xeon uses DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus and supports ECC memory, a hallmark of its server/workstation positioning. The Core i3 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus and does not support ECC. The Core i3's memory bandwidth is listed at 59.7 GB/s, while no figure is provided for the Xeon. PCIe support also differs: the Xeon has PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i3 has PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics is a major differentiator. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU. The Core i3 includes Iris Xe Graphics G4, providing a complete platform solution for mobile systems. The Xeon's TDP is 130 watts, while the Core i3 is a 15-watt part, a massive efficiency divide that also explains the mobile form factor of the latter. The release dates underscore the generational gap: the Xeon launched on March 29, 2009, while the Core i3 launched on September 1, 2020.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Core i3-1110G4 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark, winning all five head-to-head tests by approximately 13% margins. Users seeking raw performance in either multi-threaded or single-threaded Cinebench workloads should choose the Core i3-1110G4. Its higher boost clock, newer 10 nm architecture, and larger per-core cache deliver a decisive advantage over the 45 nm Nehalem-based Xeon.

The Xeon W3570, despite its server/workstation market segment and 4-core/8-thread configuration, cannot compete with the newer mobile chip. Its only potential appeal is the support for ECC memory, which may be relevant for certain stability-critical server workloads. However, the benchmark results show no performance scenario where the Xeon wins. The Core i3's integrated graphics also make it a more complete package for systems without a discrete GPU.

The average benchmark score is a minor oddity, with the Xeon at 955 versus the Core i3 at 945, but this does not change the head-to-head verdict. The Xeon's percentile ranking is 25, and the Core i3's percentile is also 25, placing both in the same overall performance tier. Yet within the specific tests they share, the Core i3 is consistently ahead. For any user deciding between these two based on recorded performance, the Core i3-1110G4 is the clear recommendation. The Xeon W3570 is an end-of-life product, while the Core i3 is active, further reinforcing the choice for new systems.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-1110G4 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Core i3-1110G4 beat the Xeon W3570 in multi-core tests?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Core i3 scores 3202 versus the Xeon's 2776, a 13.3% advantage. It also wins Cinebench R20 multicore with 1344 versus 1165 and Cinebench R15 multicore with 322 versus 279.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference?

A: The Core i3-1110G4 wins by 13.2% in Cinebench R20 single-core (189 versus 164) and by 13.3% in Cinebench R23 single-core (452 versus 392).

Q: Does the Xeon W3570 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-1110G4 does not.

Q: What are the process nodes for each processor?

A: The Xeon W3570 is fabricated on a 45 nm process, while the Core i3-1110G4 uses a 10 nm process.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-1110G4 includes Iris Xe Graphics G4. The Xeon W3570 has no integrated graphics.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W3570 | Intel Core i3-1110G4 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 1800.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.47 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| TDP | 130 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel BGA 1598 |

| Architecture | Nehalem | Tiger Lake |

| Codename | Bloomfield | Tiger Lake-U |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 10 nm |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe Graphics G4 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2009-03-29 | 2020-09-01 |

| Transistors | 731 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | Not listed |