Intel Core i3-4160 vs Intel Xeon E5620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints an unusually close picture between these two processors. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E5620 takes the win, but by margins so narrow they border on statistical noise. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Xeon scores 301 against the Core i3-4160's 297, a delta of 1.3 percent. That pattern repeats across the entire suite: the Xeon leads by 1.1 percent in Cinebench R20 multicore (1255 vs 1241), by 1.1 percent in R20 single-core (177 vs 175), by 1.2 percent in R23 multicore (2989 vs 2955), and by 1.2 percent in R23 single-core (422 vs 417).

The consistency of these results is notable. The Xeon wins all five head-to-head tests, yet never by more than 1.3 percent. For practical workloads, this means the two chips are effectively interchangeable in raw compute throughput. The single-core results are particularly telling: the Core i3-4160 has a 3.60 GHz base clock with no boost, while the Xeon runs at 2.40 GHz base and boosts to 2.67 GHz. Despite the i3's 50 percent higher base clock advantage, the Xeon still edges ahead in every single-core test. That speaks to architectural efficiency rather than clock speed dominance.

The average benchmark scores in the database confirm the near-parity. The Xeon E5620 posts an average score of 1029, while the Core i3-4160 sits at 1017. That is a 12-point gap, roughly 1.2 percent. Both processors land at the 28th percentile among all CPUs tracked in the database, meaning they occupy essentially the same performance tier. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B at 1027 (a 0.2 percent delta) and the Intel Pentium G4560 at 1031 (a negative 0.2 percent delta). For the Core i3-4160, the closest neighbors are the Intel Core i5-2300 at 1014 (0.3 percent) and the Intel Core i3-4330 at 1020 (negative 0.3 percent). These rival clusters reinforce the conclusion: both chips sit in a dense performance band where small margins separate many products.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests. The deltas range from 1.1 percent to 1.3 percent, with the largest margin in Cinebench R15 multicore (301 vs 297).

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The Xeon leads in Cinebench R20 single-core with 177 against 175 (1.1 percent) and in R23 single-core with 422 against 417 (1.2 percent). This is despite the Core i3-4160 having a higher base clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.40 GHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Xeon E5620 has an average score of 1029, while the Core i3-4160 averages 1017. Both sit at the 28th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5620 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-4160 does not list ECC support in its specifications.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance class?

A: Yes. Both are at the 28th percentile, and their nearest rivals overlap in the 1012 to 1031 average score range. The Xeon's closest rival, the Pentium G4560, scores 1031; the i3's closest rival, the Pentium Gold G5600, scores 1022.

Q: What are the production statuses of these chips?

A: The Xeon E5620 is listed as end-of-life, while the Core i3-4160 is marked as active production.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The Xeon E5620 uses the Westmere architecture on a 32 nm process node, built on the Westmere-EP codename. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. The Core i3-4160 is a Haswell part on a 22 nm node, with 1,400 million transistors in a smaller 177 mm² die. The newer process allows the i3 to fit more transistors into less silicon, a direct reflection of the four years separating their release dates (the Xeon launched in March 2010, the i3 in July 2014).

Core configuration differs sharply. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4160 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Both support simultaneous multithreading, but the Xeon doubles the physical core count. Cache hierarchies also diverge: the Xeon provides 12 MB of shared L3 cache, whereas the i3 carries only 3 MB. L1 and L2 caches are identical per core at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. The Xeon's larger L3 is a hallmark of its server pedigree, designed to feed eight threads from a shared pool.

Memory architecture separates the two further. The Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the i3 uses dual-channel DDR3. Both accept DDR3, but the Xeon's wider memory bus gives it a theoretical bandwidth advantage in memory-bound workloads, though the database does not record specific bandwidth figures. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but absent on the i3, reflecting the Xeon's server/workstation market segment versus the i3's desktop focus.

Platform features also diverge. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366 with PCIe Gen 2, while the i3 fits Intel Socket 1150 with PCIe Gen 3. The i3 includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4400; the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. Power consumption differs substantially: the Xeon has an 80 W TDP, the i3 draws 54 W. The i3 achieves lower power draw despite a higher base clock, a direct benefit of the 22 nm node and smaller core configuration.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is limited on both. The Xeon has a boost clock of 2.67 GHz, while the i3 lists no boost clock, running at a fixed 3.60 GHz. The Xeon's part number is SLBV4; the i3's part number is not listed in the database.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear but narrow verdict. The Intel Xeon E5620 wins every recorded benchmark, yet the margins are so small that real-world differences will be imperceptible in most tasks. The Xeon's advantages come from its 4-core, 8-thread configuration and 12 MB L3 cache, which provide a structural edge in multi-threaded workloads. The Core i3-4160 counters with a much higher base clock (3.60 GHz vs 2.40 GHz) and a newer architecture, yet still trails in single-core tests.

For users deciding between these two, the choice hinges on platform requirements rather than raw performance. The Xeon E5620 belongs to a server/workstation ecosystem with ECC memory support, triple-channel DDR3, and Socket 1366. It is end-of-life, meaning replacement parts and modern motherboard compatibility are concerns. The Core i3-4160 is active, desktop-oriented, runs on Socket 1150 with dual-channel DDR3, includes integrated graphics, and draws significantly less power at 54 W versus 80 W.

The benchmark data shows both processors sitting at the 28th percentile, surrounded by rivals within a 0.5 percent delta of their average scores. Neither chip offers a meaningful performance advantage over the other in the recorded tests. The Xeon wins on thread count and cache, the i3 wins on efficiency, clock speed, and modern platform features. Users needing ECC memory or maximum thread density should choose the Xeon. Users prioritizing lower power consumption, integrated graphics, or an active production chip should select the Core i3-4160. In purely performance terms, the database records a 1.3 percent maximum delta, which is negligible for most applications.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5620 | Intel Core i3-4160 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost clock | 2.67 GHz | None listed |

| TDP | 80 W | 54 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Westmere | Haswell |

| Process node | 32 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,400 million |

| Die size | 239 mm² | 177 mm² |

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3 |

| Integrated graphics | None | Intel HD 4400 |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release date | March 2010 | July 2014 |

| Multiplier unlocked | No | No |

| Part number | SLBV4 | Not listed |