CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon X3470 and Intel Core i3-4130 represent two very different design philosophies separated by four years of silicon evolution. The Xeon is a 2009-era server/workstation part built on a 45 nm process, while the i3 is a 2013 desktop chip on a 22 nm node. Despite these architectural chasms, benchmark results show a remarkably close contest, with the older Xeon holding a narrow but consistent edge across every tested Cinebench workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon X3470, though the margins are almost negligible. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 287 against the i3-4130's 285, a delta of just 0.7%. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1199 versus 1189, widening the gap slightly to 0.8%. The R23 multi-core test repeats the pattern: 2857 for the Xeon, 2833 for the i3, again a 0.8% advantage.

Single-core results follow the same trajectory. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon's 169 narrowly beats the i3's 168, a 0.6% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 403 against 400, a 0.8% lead for the Xeon. The Xeon wins all five head-to-head tests, but the largest delta across any workload is just 0.8%. This is a statistical tie in practical terms, yet the consistency of the Xeon's victory across every benchmark suggests a genuine, if tiny, performance advantage.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Xeon has an average score of 983, placing it in the 26th percentile of all CPUs. The i3-4130 averages 975, also in the 26th percentile. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-4370T at 983 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i3-4130T at 984 (-0.1%). The i3-4130's nearest rivals include the AMD Athlon X4 840 at 975 (0% delta) and the Intel Core i3-4150T at 975 (0% delta). Both processors sit in the same performance stratum, surrounded by similar low-to-mid-range parts.

Architecture Differences

The underlying hardware could hardly be more different. The Xeon X3470 is a Nehalem-based Lynnfield chip with 4 cores and 8 threads, running at a base clock of 2.93 GHz with a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. Its 45 nm process packs 774 million transistors into a 296 mm² die. The i3-4130 is a Haswell part with just 2 cores and 4 threads, running at a fixed 3.40 GHz with no boost capability. Its 22 nm process crams 1,400 million transistors into a much smaller 177 mm² die.

Cache configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon offers 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3 has only 3 MB. Both share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations. This larger L3 cache is a critical advantage for the Xeon, helping it compensate for its lower clock speed in multi-threaded workloads. The i3 compensates with a significantly higher base clock (3.40 GHz vs 2.93 GHz) and the architectural efficiency of Haswell.

Memory support shows another key difference. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a server-grade feature absent from the i3. Both use dual-channel DDR3, but the Xeon's memory bandwidth is specified at 21.3 GB/s; no such figure is provided for the i3. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2 with 16 CPU lanes, while the i3 steps up to PCIe Gen 3. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, whereas the i3 includes Intel HD 4400.

Power and platform requirements also diverge. The Xeon is a 95 W TDP part on Intel Socket 1156, while the i3 draws only 54 W on Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon launched at a $589 MSRP in September 2009; no launch MSRP is listed for the i3, which arrived in September 2013. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the i3 remains active in production. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows the Xeon X3470 winning every single test, but the practical implications are nuanced. The Xeon's victories in multi-core workloads (R15, R20, R23) stem from its 4-core/8-thread configuration versus the i3's 2-core/4-thread setup. The larger 8 MB L3 cache and ECC memory support make it suitable for server or workstation tasks where memory reliability and multi-threaded throughput matter. Its lower clock speed is offset by the extra threads and cache, allowing it to edge ahead in all tested scenarios.

The i3-4130's strengths are qualitative rather than quantitative in this comparison. Its 54 W TDP is substantially lower, making it a more efficient choice for compact desktop builds. The integrated HD 4400 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The 22 nm process and newer Haswell architecture deliver better instructions-per-clock, allowing its 2 cores to nearly match the Xeon's 4 cores in single-threaded tests. The i3 wins in scenarios where power efficiency, modern platform features like PCIe Gen 3, and integrated graphics are priorities.

However, the data does not show the i3 winning any of the five head-to-head benchmarks. The Xeon's 0.6-0.8% margins in single-core tests are notable because they indicate that even with a 0.47 GHz clock disadvantage, the older architecture holds its own. The i3's advantage would likely appear in workloads not covered by these Cinebench tests, particularly those sensitive to newer instruction sets or lower power draw, but within the measured data, the Xeon is the clear, if marginal, victor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-4130 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance difference between the two in the tested benchmarks?

A: The largest delta is 0.8%, seen in Cinebench R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The Xeon wins all these tests, with the smallest margin being 0.6% in R20 single-core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon X3470 supports ECC memory, while the i3-4130 does not.

Q: What are the process nodes and die sizes of these chips?

A: The Xeon X3470 is built on a 45 nm process with a 296 mm² die. The i3-4130 uses a 22 nm process with a 177 mm² die.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-4130 includes Intel HD 4400 graphics. The Intel Xeon X3470 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon X3470 has an average benchmark score of 983, while the i3-4130 scores 975. Both sit in the 26th percentile of all CPUs.

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon X3470 outperforms the Intel Core i3-4130 in every benchmark test recorded. The margins are slim, never exceeding 0.8%, but they are uniform across all five Cinebench workloads. For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded performance, the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads provide a tangible, if small, advantage over the i3's 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's 8 MB L3 cache likely contributes to its consistent lead, especially in multi-core tests where the i3's 3 MB cache becomes a bottleneck.

However, the i3-4130 is not without its own merits. Its 54 W TDP versus the Xeon's 95 W makes it a far more power-efficient option. The integrated HD 4400 graphics and PCIe Gen 3 support bring modern platform features that the 2009-era Xeon cannot match. The i3 also benefits from a newer 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors, indicating a more advanced design despite fewer cores.

The choice between these two depends on platform requirements. A server or workstation build with ECC memory needs and multi-threaded workloads would favor the Xeon X3470, which also comes with a $589 launch MSRP. A desktop system prioritizing low power consumption, integrated graphics, and a modern socket would prefer the i3-4130. Within the measured benchmarks, the Xeon is the faster processor, but the i3 offers efficiency and features that the raw scores do not capture. The 0.8% performance difference is negligible for most applications, making platform compatibility and power constraints the deciding factors.