CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-13100TE and the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 occupy opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: one is a modern, low-power desktop part, the other a legacy, high-core-count workstation chip. Benchmark data reveals a surprisingly consistent outcome across all six head-to-head tests, with the Xeon taking every single win. However, the margins are remarkably narrow, and the architectural context explains why this comparison is far closer than the generational gap suggests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1660 v3 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but it does so by a razor-thin margin. In Cinebench R15, the Xeon scores 1074 in multi-core versus the i3’s 1013, a delta of -5.7%. The single-core result in the same test shows the Xeon ahead at 151 versus 142, a -6% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds: the Xeon posts 4475 multi-core against the i3’s 4222 (-5.7%), and 631 single-core versus 595 (-5.7%). Cinebench R23 continues the trend with the Xeon at 10656 multi-core versus 10054 (-5.6%) and 1504 single-core versus 1419 (-5.7%).

The consistency of the deltaPct values, hovering around -5.6% to -6%, is striking. No workload flips the result, and the relative performance gap is nearly identical whether the test stresses one core or all cores. The Xeon’s advantage is not workload-dependent; it is a uniform, modest lead across every metric. The i3-13100TE’s best performance relative to the Xeon comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the deficit narrows to -5.6%, while its worst is in Cinebench R15 single-core at -6%.

It is worth noting that neither chip distinguishes itself from the broader CPU market. Both processors sit at the 52nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are dead average in aggregate performance. The i3’s average benchmark score is 3111, while the Xeon’s is 3082. The i3 actually has a slightly higher average score, yet it loses every direct comparison, a contradiction explained by the fact that the Xeon’s benchmark suite lacks Geekbench results, which are included in the i3’s average. The Xeon has no Geekbench scores in the data, while the i3 posts 5703 multi-core and 1739 single-core. This omission inflates the i3’s average relative to its Cinebench performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1660 v3 wins everywhere the two are directly compared. In multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon’s 8 cores and 16 threads provide a consistent edge over the i3’s 4 cores and 8 threads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 10656 versus 10054 reflects this, though the advantage is only 6%. Similarly, in single-threaded tasks, the Xeon’s higher base clock (3.00 GHz versus 2.40 GHz) and boost clock (3.50 GHz versus 4.10 GHz) do not fully compensate for the i3’s newer architecture, yet the Xeon still leads, scoring 1504 to 1419 in Cinebench R23 single-core.

The i3-13100TE has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, the Geekbench results, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison, show the i3 performing strongly: 5703 multi-core and 1739 single-core. Since these scores are not paired against a Xeon equivalent, they cannot be used to claim a victory, but they do indicate the i3 is a capable processor in its own right. The i3 also has integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730), while the Xeon has none, a feature difference that matters for systems without a discrete GPU. Additionally, the i3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory, whereas the Xeon is limited to DDR4.

The Xeon’s wins are consistent but narrow, suggesting that for users who already have a Socket 2011-3 platform, the upgrade path to this chip offers a modest performance bump. The i3, conversely, offers a modern platform with newer memory and PCIe support, but in pure compute it trails the older Xeon by a small margin.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from vastly different eras and design philosophies. The i3-13100TE is built on Intel’s Raptor Lake architecture, using a 10 nm process node with a die size of 163 mm². The Xeon E5-1660 v3 uses the older Haswell architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. The process node difference is significant: the i3’s 10 nm node allows for higher efficiency and lower power draw, while the Xeon’s 22 nm node is larger and less efficient.

Core counts differ substantially. The i3 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads, exactly double. Cache layouts reflect this: the i3 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 20 MB of shared L3. Despite having fewer cores, the i3’s L3 cache per core is higher (3 MB per core versus 2.5 MB), but the Xeon’s total L3 is larger.

Memory support diverges. The i3 supports both DDR4 and DDR5, with a dual-channel memory bus. The Xeon supports only DDR4 but uses a quad-channel bus, providing a theoretical memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, a figure the i3 lacks in the data. The i3 also supports PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes, while the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. Neither chip supports 3D V-Cache, and both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a consumer i3 but standard for a Xeon.

The i3’s integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 730) is a major differentiator, as the Xeon has none. The i3 is also a locked multiplier (not unlocked), while the Xeon is multiplier-unlocked, allowing overclocking. The i3’s TDP is 35 watts versus the Xeon’s 140 watts, a fourfold difference that has major implications for cooling and power delivery. The production status tells the story: the i3 is active, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The Xeon was released in September 2014, the i3 in January 2023.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i3-13100TE has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Xeon scores 10656, the i3 scores 10054, giving the Xeon a 5.6% lead.

Q: Does the i3-13100TE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i3 includes UHD Graphics 730, while the Xeon E5-1660 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports DDR5 memory?

A: Only the i3-13100TE supports DDR5. The Xeon E5-1660 v3 is limited to DDR4.

Q: Are both chips at the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the i3 and the Xeon sit at the 52nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The i3 has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Xeon has a TDP of 140 watts.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-13100TE | Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 140 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1700 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Raptor Lake | Haswell |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 163 mm² | 356 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 2,600 million |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

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

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 68.3 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 16 Lanes | Gen 3, 40 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 730 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | Yes |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner in raw performance: the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 takes all six head-to-head benchmark victories. Its 6% lead in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench tests is consistent and reproducible. For users who need maximum compute throughput from a legacy Socket 2011-3 platform, the Xeon is the superior choice. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, 20 MB of L3 cache, and quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth are all factors that contribute to its edge.

However, the i3-13100TE is not a poor performer, it is merely slightly behind. The i3’s strengths lie elsewhere: a 35-watt TDP versus the Xeon’s 140-watt TDP means drastically lower heat output and power consumption. The i3 supports modern DDR5 memory and PCIe Gen 5, while the Xeon is limited to DDR4 and PCIe Gen 3. The i3 includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its production status is active, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

The choice depends on the platform and priorities. A user building a new, energy-efficient system on Socket 1700 should choose the i3, accepting the small performance trade-off for a modern feature set and a fraction of the power draw. A user with an existing Socket 2011-3 system, or one who needs quad-channel memory bandwidth and more cores, should pick the Xeon, despite its age and higher power consumption. Neither chip is a clear winner in aggregate, both sit at the 52nd percentile, so the decision should rest on platform compatibility and system-level requirements rather than benchmark bragging rights. The Xeon wins the numbers game, but the i3 wins the efficiency game.