Intel Core i3-1110G4 vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

The benchmark data presents a clear and consistent picture: the Intel Core i3-1110G4 outperforms the Intel Xeon X5560 across every single test recorded. While the Xeon X5560 is a four-core, eight-thread server processor from the Nehalem era, the Core i3-1110G4 is a modern dual-core, four-thread mobile chip based on Tiger Lake. Despite having half the core count, the newer architecture of the i3-1110G4 delivers a decisive victory in all five head-to-head comparisons, with the data showing no test where the older Xeon manages to pull ahead. The results underscore how generational improvements in microarchitecture and process technology can outweigh raw core counts.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking aspect of this comparison is the uniformity of the results. The Intel Core i3-1110G4 wins all five benchmark tests, leaving the Xeon X5560 with zero wins. This is not a marginal victory; the deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering around 14% across all tests. This consistency suggests a fundamental performance advantage in the i3-1110G4's architecture rather than a strength in any specific workload type.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-1110G4 scores 322 against the Xeon's 276, a delta of -14.3% from the perspective of the Xeon. This is particularly telling because multi-core tests are traditionally where a processor with more physical cores should excel. The Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads are simply outclassed by the i3-1110G4's 2 cores and 4 threads, indicating that the Tiger Lake architecture's efficiency per core is vastly superior. The single-core results reinforce this narrative, with the i3-1110G4 scoring 452 in Cinebench R23 single-core compared to the Xeon's 388, a -14.2% delta.

The pattern holds steady across the newer Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20, the i3-1110G4 scores 1344 in multi-core and 189 in single-core, while the Xeon manages 1154 and 162, respectively. The deltas here are -14.1% and -14.3%. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the scores are 3202 for the i3-1110G4 and 2749 for the Xeon, a -14.1% delta. The uniformity of these numbers—all between 14.1% and 14.3%—indicates that the performance gap is largely independent of the specific workload, pointing to a consistent per-clock, per-core superiority for the newer chip.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the two processors are nearly identical. The Xeon X5560 has an average benchmark score of 946, while the i3-1110G4 sits at 945, a difference of just 0.1%. In fact, the nearestRivals data shows the i3-1110G4 is 0.1% behind the Xeon in average score, while the Xeon is 0.1% ahead of the i3-1110G4. This is a statistical tie in the overall average. However, this aggregate number masks the fact that the i3-1110G4 is significantly stronger in the specific Cinebench tests where it wins, while the Xeon's average is buoyed by its performance in tests not included in the head-to-head list. The data suggests that in the tested workloads, the i3-1110G4 is the clear winner, even if the overall average score is a wash.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X5560 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-1110G4 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Is the newer Core i3-1110G4 faster in multi-core tests despite having fewer cores?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Core i3-1110G4 scores 3202, which is 14.1% higher than the Xeon X5560's score of 2749. The same trend is seen in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-1110G4 scores 1344 versus the Xeon's 1154.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The Core i3-1110G4 is consistently faster in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 452 compared to the Xeon's 388, a 14.2% advantage. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the scores are 189 and 162, respectively.

Q: What is the difference in their average benchmark scores?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The Intel Xeon X5560 has an average score of 946, and the Intel Core i3-1110G4 has an average score of 945. The delta between them is just 0.1%.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Xeon X5560 has a TDP of 95 watts, while the Core i3-1110G4 has a TDP of 15 watts. This indicates a significant difference in power draw and thermal output.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon X5560 supports ECC memory, while the Core i3-1110G4 does not.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-1110G4 wins in every single category where a direct comparison exists. It is faster in all five Cinebench tests, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads. This makes it the better choice for any application that relies on raw CPU performance, whether that is rendering, encoding, or general responsiveness. The i3-1110G4's victory is not limited to one type of workload; it is a comprehensive sweep.

The Intel Xeon X5560, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins in this dataset. However, its advantages lie in areas not captured by the Cinebench scores. It is a server and workstation part with ECC memory support, which is a critical feature for data integrity in professional environments. It also uses triple-channel DDR3 memory, whereas the i3-1110G4 uses dual-channel DDR4. The Xeon's socket is Intel Socket 1366, which is a platform for multi-socket servers, whereas the i3-1110G4 is a mobile BGA part. For a user with an existing Socket 1366 motherboard, the Xeon could be a cheap upgrade path, but in terms of pure processing power, the data shows no scenario where it wins.

The i3-1110G4 also benefits from having integrated graphics (Iris Xe Graphics G4) and PCIe Gen 4 support, which are features absent from the Xeon. While the Xeon's lack of integrated graphics is typical for a server part, it means a system build requires a discrete GPU. The i3-1110G4 can function in a system without a discrete graphics card, although its performance in gaming would be limited by the integrated solution.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification field, reflecting their different eras and market positions. The core count is a fundamental difference: the Xeon X5560 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-1110G4 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The base clock speeds are also vastly different, with the Xeon running at 2.80 GHz and the i3-1110G4 at 1800.00 MHz. However, the boost clock tells a different story, with the i3-1110G4 boosting to 3.90 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.20 GHz.

Power consumption is another major differentiator. The Xeon X5560 has a TDP of 95 watts, suitable for a desktop server platform, while the Core i3-1110G4 is a 15-watt mobile part. This has implications for cooling and battery life. The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the i3-1110G4 uses Intel BGA 1598. Memory support differs, with the Xeon using DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration and the i3-1110G4 using DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration. The i3-1110G4 also lists a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Xeon does not have a listed memory bandwidth figure.

The cache hierarchies differ as well. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. The i3-1110G4 has 96 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3. The integrated graphics presence is a key difference; the i3-1110G4 has Iris Xe Graphics G4, while the Xeon has none. The production status also differs, with the Xeon being end-of-life and the i3-1110G4 being active. Finally, the release dates are 11 years apart, with the Xeon launching in 2009 and the i3-1110G4 in 2020.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is the primary reason for the performance disparity. The Xeon X5560 is based on the Nehalem architecture with the codename Gainestown, built on a 45 nm process node. This is a first-generation Core architecture that introduced the integrated memory controller and point-to-point interconnect. It was manufactured with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. In contrast, the Core i3-1110G4 is based on the Tiger Lake architecture with the codename Tiger Lake-U, built on a 10 nm process node. This represents a significant generational leap.

The process node shrink from 45 nm to 10 nm allows for much higher efficiency and clock speeds. The i3-1110G4 also uses the Willow Cove microarchitecture for its cores, which is far more advanced than the Nehalem cores. The Xeon's transistor count is listed, but the i3-1110G4's is not, indicating that a direct comparison of that metric is not possible from the data. The cache architecture also reflects the newer design: the i3-1110G4 has a larger L2 cache per core (1.25 MB versus 256 KB) and a smaller L3 cache overall (6 MB versus 8 MB), but the larger per-core L2 is more efficient for its dual-core design.

The platforms are fundamentally different. The Xeon supports PCIe Gen 2, while the i3-1110G4 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes. The Xeon is a server part with ECC memory and triple-channel support, while the i3-1110G4 is a mobile part with no ECC support and dual-channel memory. The integrated graphics in the i3-1110G4 are a major architectural addition, as the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. These differences highlight that the Xeon is designed for maximum reliability and multi-socket server configurations, while the i3-1110G4 is designed for compact, power-efficient mobile devices.

The Verdict

The data in this comparison is unambiguous. The Intel Core i3-1110G4 is the superior processor in terms of raw computational performance, winning all five benchmark tests by a margin of roughly 14%. For any user focused on Cinebench scores or similar rendering workloads, the i3-1110G4 is the clear choice. Its performance advantage is particularly impressive given its lower core count and drastically lower TDP of 15 watts compared to the Xeon's 95 watts. This makes the i3-1110G4 not only faster but also far more energy-efficient.

However, the choice is not solely about performance. The Intel Xeon X5560 belongs to a different ecosystem. Its support for ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3 makes it a viable option for legacy server or workstation builds where those features are required. Its Socket 1366 platform allows for multi-socket configurations, which is a capability the mobile i3-1110G4 cannot offer. For a user who already has a compatible motherboard, the Xeon could serve as a functional, if old, server component.

For most other scenarios, the Core i3-1110G4 is the better pick. Its integrated graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic systems. Its modern PCIe Gen 4 support provides faster connectivity for new components. Its active production status means it is available for new designs, whereas the Xeon is end-of-life. The benchmark results show that the i3-1110G4 does more with less, making it the better choice for anyone building a new system that values performance and efficiency. The Xeon's only meaningful advantages are its ECC support and platform-specific features, which are irrelevant to the majority of users.