CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon W5590 and Intel Core i3-4130T are separated by four years of silicon evolution, yet they land in the same performance tier. The data shows the W5590 wins every head-to-head Cinebench test included, with margins between 17.4% and 17.6%. However, the i3-4130T matches that victory with a 35W TDP versus 130W, a modern 22nm node versus 45nm, and integrated graphics the Xeon lacks entirely. The verdict splits cleanly: the Xeon W5590 is the raw compute choice for legacy workstation workloads where multi-threaded throughput and ECC memory matter, while the Core i3-4130T is the efficient, low-power desktop part that trades raw speed for a fraction of the power draw and a platform with PCIe Gen 3 support. Neither part is a clear winner; the data suggests they serve different masters.

The Verdict

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W5590 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 17.4% in single-core tests to 17.6% in multi-core tests. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2867 eclipses the i3-4130T’s 2440, and its R23 single-core score of 404 beats the i3’s 344. This is a consistent, repeatable advantage across every rendering workload measured. The Xeon’s average benchmark score of 986 sits just 0.2% above the i3-4130T’s 984, but that aggregate hides the Xeon’s dominance in the specific Cinebench suite.

Who should pick the Xeon W5590? The data points to users running multi-threaded server or workstation applications that can utilize its 4 cores and 8 threads. Its 8 MB of shared L3 cache and triple-channel DDR3 memory bus with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth give it a structural advantage in memory-heavy workloads. The 130W TDP is a real cost, but for a socket 1366 workstation, that power budget is acceptable if ECC memory is a requirement, a feature the i3-4130T lacks entirely.

Who should pick the Core i3-4130T? Anyone prioritizing efficiency and platform modernity. Its 35W TDP is a 73% reduction from the Xeon’s 130W. It runs on socket 1150 with PCIe Gen 3, has Intel HD 4400 integrated graphics, and uses a 22nm process with 1,400 million transistors. For desktop tasks that don’t demand the Xeon’s full multi-core muscle, and where integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, the i3-4130T is the rational choice. The data shows both CPUs sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, meaning neither is a performance leader, but the i3 achieves parity in average score with a fraction of the power envelope.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is stark. The Xeon W5590 uses the Nehalem architecture on the Gainestown codename, built on a 45nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The i3-4130T uses Haswell, built on a 22nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. That’s a dramatic density improvement: nearly twice the transistors in a smaller physical area.

Core counts differ fundamentally. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads; the i3 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Cache hierarchies diverge accordingly. The Xeon’s L3 cache is 8 MB shared, while the i3 has 3 MB shared. Both have identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) caches, but the Xeon’s larger shared cache is critical for multi-threaded workloads.

Memory architecture separates them further. The Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3 with a specified 32.0 GB/s memory bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The i3 uses dual-channel DDR3 with no ECC support and no listed bandwidth figure. The Xeon targets the server/workstation segment; the i3 is a desktop part. The i3 includes Intel HD 4400 integrated graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. PCIe generations also differ: the Xeon is Gen 2, the i3 is Gen 3.

The process node advantage is the single biggest architectural differentiator. The 22nm Haswell design achieves comparable average benchmark scores (984 vs 986) with half the cores and a fraction of the power draw. This is a testament to architectural efficiency gains from 2009 to 2013.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has better multi-core performance?

A: The Xeon W5590 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2867 versus the i3-4130T’s 2440, a 17.5% advantage. In R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1204 versus 1024, a 17.6% lead.

Q: Is the Core i3-4130T more power-efficient?

A: Yes, dramatically. The i3-4130T has a 35W TDP, while the Xeon W5590 has a 130W TDP. The i3 also uses a 22nm process versus the Xeon’s 45nm, and it achieves nearly identical average benchmark scores (984 vs 986) with that far lower power envelope.

Q: Does the Xeon W5590 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon W5590 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-4130T does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting workstation or server builds, while the i3 is limited to standard desktop memory.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i3-4130T has integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4400. The Xeon W5590 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their single-core scores compare?

A: The Xeon W5590 leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 404 versus the i3’s 344, a 17.4% advantage. In R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 169 versus 144, also a 17.4% lead.

Q: Are these CPUs in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are at the 27th percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the Xeon W5590 averages 986, and the i3-4130T averages 984, a 0.2% difference.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. Core and thread counts diverge: the Xeon W5590 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-4130T halves that to 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ, with the Xeon at 3.33 GHz and the i3 at 2.90 GHz. The Xeon has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz; the i3 has no boost capability listed.

Thermal design power is a major separator: 130W for the Xeon versus 35W for the i3. Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, the i3 uses Intel Socket 1150. Architecture generations are four years apart: Nehalem (Gainestown) for the Xeon, Haswell for the i3. Process nodes differ from 45nm to 22nm, with transistor counts of 731 million versus 1,400 million and die sizes of 263 mm² versus 177 mm².

Cache configurations differ only in L3 size: 8 MB shared for the Xeon versus 3 MB shared for the i3. Memory channels drop from triple-channel to dual-channel, and memory bandwidth is listed only for the Xeon at 32.0 GB/s. ECC support is present on the Xeon only. PCIe generation moves from Gen 2 to Gen 3. Integrated graphics exist only on the i3 (Intel HD 4400). Market segments differ: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Release dates span from 2009-08-08 for the Xeon to 2013-08-31 for the i3. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1600; the i3 has no listed launch MSRP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W5590 sweeps all five head-to-head Cinebench tests. The largest margins are in multi-core tests: Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Xeon at 288 versus the i3’s 245, a 17.6% win. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats that exact 17.6% delta, with scores of 1204 and 1024. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows a 17.5% margin, 2867 versus 2440.

Single-core tests follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core has the Xeon winning 169 to 144, a 17.4% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 404 versus 344, also a 17.4% margin. The consistency is striking: every test lands within a 0.2 percentage point band of 17.4% to 17.6%. This suggests the Xeon’s advantage is not workload-specific but rather a uniform performance ceiling higher than the i3’s.

The nearest rival data puts this in context. The i3-4130T’s average score of 984 is exactly matched by the Core i7-875K, and the Xeon W5590’s 986 is just 0.2% above that. The Xeon X3470 sits at 983, and the Core i3-4370T also at 983. The two CPUs in this comparison are the top two performers in their immediate rival group, separated from each other by a mere 0.2% in average score. Yet in the Cinebench suite specifically, the Xeon’s 17%+ margins are decisive.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W5590 wins every benchmark measured, but its victories point to specific use cases. Multi-threaded rendering workloads favor it heavily: the 17.6% lead in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, plus the 17.5% lead in R23 multi-core, indicate that applications exploiting 8 threads will see meaningful gains. The 8 MB L3 cache and triple-channel memory with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth support this advantage in data-intensive tasks. For legacy server or workstation builds on socket 1366, where ECC memory is mandatory, the Xeon is the only option of the two.

The Core i3-4130T wins the efficiency argument, even though it loses every benchmark. Its 35W TDP makes it suitable for compact, low-power desktop systems where heat and electricity draw are primary constraints. The 22nm process delivers 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, enabling that efficiency. Integrated Intel HD 4400 graphics mean the i3 can power a display without a discrete GPU, a capability the Xeon completely lacks. PCIe Gen 3 support makes it compatible with modern expansion cards, whereas the Xeon is limited to Gen 2.

The data does not support choosing the i3 for raw performance, it loses every test. But the i3 wins on platform features and power economy. For a desktop user who needs a basic, efficient CPU with modern connectivity and no discrete GPU, the i3-4130T is the clear pick. For a workstation user who needs ECC memory, maximum multi-threaded throughput, and can tolerate 130W of heat, the Xeon W5590 is the only choice. The two CPUs occupy different niches despite their similar average benchmark scores.