Intel Core i3-4170 vs Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 and the Intel Core i3-4170 are both end-of-life Intel processors built on the 22 nm Haswell architecture, but they target entirely different market segments. The Xeon E5-1607 v3 is a server and workstation part with four cores and four threads, while the Core i3-4170 is a desktop chip with two cores and four threads. In the recorded head-to-head benchmark data, the Xeon E5-1607 v3 wins all five comparisons by a consistent margin of roughly 38%, making it the clear performance leader across every tested workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 outperforms the Intel Core i3-4170 in every recorded test, with margins that stay tightly clustered between 37.8% and 38.1%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 422 points against the i3's 306, a 37.9% advantage. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1761 points versus 1275 for the i3, a 38.1% lead, which is the largest delta in the dataset.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon records 248 points, while the i3 manages 180, a 37.8% gap. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the Xeon at 4193 points against the i3's 3038, a 38% difference. The Cinebench R23 single-core test completes the picture with the Xeon at 591 points and the i3 at 429, again a 37.8% margin. The Xeon wins all five head-to-head tests, with the i3 recording zero wins.

These deltas are remarkably consistent, which suggests the performance gap is driven by fundamental architectural and configuration differences rather than workload-specific quirks. The Xeon's advantage holds whether the test is multi-threaded or single-threaded, indicating that its higher core count and larger cache benefit all types of rendering and compute tasks measured here. The i3's higher base clock of 3.70 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.10 GHz does not compensate for the Xeon's additional physical cores and substantially larger L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 wins every category where both processors were tested. This includes multi-core workloads, where its four physical cores provide a direct advantage over the i3's two cores, and single-core workloads, where the Xeon still leads despite the i3's higher clock speed. The Xeon's wins are not marginal; they are consistent and substantial, ranging from 37.8% to 38.1% across all five tests.

The Intel Core i3-4170 does not win any of the recorded benchmarks. However, the data does show areas where the i3 is not at a complete disadvantage. Its base clock of 3.70 GHz is higher than the Xeon's 3.10 GHz, and it includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4400), which the Xeon lacks entirely. The i3 also has a lower thermal design power (54 watts versus 140 watts), making it a more power-efficient part. For users who prioritize integrated graphics or lower power consumption, the i3 holds an advantage, but the recorded benchmark scores do not reflect any performance win for this chip.

The Xeon's 10 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i3's 3 MB is a major factor in its consistent lead. Additionally, the Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3 supports dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. These memory subsystem differences amplify the Xeon's advantage in memory-intensive tasks, even though the benchmark suite here focuses on Cinebench rendering.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm process node and use the Haswell microarchitecture, but they come from different families and are designed for different sockets. The Xeon E5-1607 v3 uses the Haswell-EP codename and fits in Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Core i3-4170 uses the Haswell codename and fits in Intel Socket 1150. This socket difference means they are not interchangeable in any system.

The most significant architectural difference is core count. The Xeon has four physical cores with four threads, while the i3 has two physical cores with four threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to reach four threads. The Xeon's four native cores provide better multi-threaded throughput without reliance on simultaneous multithreading. The Xeon also has a larger die size at 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors, compared to the i3's 177 mm² die with 1,400 million transistors.

Cache configuration is another major divider. The Xeon offers 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3 offers only 3 MB. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the Xeon's larger L3 cache is critical for keeping more data close to the cores. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which the i3 does not, making the Xeon suitable for error-sensitive server and workstation environments.

The memory controller differs substantially. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The i3 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. This means the Xeon can move data to and from system memory more than twice as fast as the i3, which is a decisive advantage in multi-core render workloads that stream large datasets.

The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i3 provides 16 lanes. This allows the Xeon to support more expansion cards, GPUs, or storage devices. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, whereas the i3 includes Intel HD 4400. The Xeon is also a server and workstation part with a different part number (QGDASR20M) compared to the i3's SR1PL.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The Xeon E5-1607 v3 has four cores and four threads, while the Core i3-4170 has two cores and four threads. The Xeon has a base clock of 3.10 GHz, and the i3 has a base clock of 3.70 GHz, giving the i3 a higher raw clock speed. Neither processor has a boost clock, so these are their fixed operating frequencies.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the Xeon draws 140 watts, while the i3 draws 54 watts. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, and the i3 uses Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon's architecture is listed as Haswell with the codename Haswell-EP, while the i3's architecture is Haswell with the codename Haswell. The Xeon's generation is "Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP)" and the i3's generation is "Core i3 (Haswell)".

The Xeon has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, while the i3 has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The Xeon's L3 cache is 10 MB shared, while the i3's L3 cache is 3 MB shared. Memory support differs: the Xeon uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the i3 does not.

PCIe lane count differs: the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes, and the i3 provides 16 Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the i3 includes Intel HD 4400. The market segments differ: the Xeon is for server and workstation use, while the i3 is for desktop use. Both are end-of-life and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon's release date is September 7, 2014, and the i3's release date is April 30, 2014. The i3 has a launch MSRP of $117, while the Xeon has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 422 versus 306 for the Core i3-4170, a 37.9% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 1761 versus 1275, a 38.1% lead, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4193 versus 3038, a 38% lead.

Q: Does the Core i3-4170 win in single-core tests due to its higher clock speed?

A: No. Despite the i3's higher base clock of 3.70 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.10 GHz, the Xeon still wins single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 248 versus 180 for the i3, a 37.8% advantage, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 591 versus 429, also a 37.8% advantage.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two processors?

A: The Xeon E5-1607 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i3-4170 supports dual-channel DDR3 memory with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. This means the Xeon has more than twice the theoretical memory bandwidth of the i3.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1607 v3 has no integrated graphics. The Core i3-4170 includes Intel HD 4400 integrated graphics. This makes the i3 suitable for systems without a dedicated GPU, while the Xeon requires a separate graphics card.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-1607 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-4170 does not support ECC, which is typical for desktop parts. This makes the Xeon more suitable for server or workstation environments where data integrity is critical.

Q: How do these processors compare in average benchmark score and percentile ranking?

A: The Xeon E5-1607 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1212 and ranks in the 34th percentile of all CPUs. The Core i3-4170 has an average benchmark score of 1193 and ranks in the 33rd percentile. The Xeon's closest rivals are the Intel Core i3-7300T and Intel Xeon E5645, both with an average score of 1211 and a delta of 0.1%. The i3's closest rivals are the AMD Athlon PRO 300U and Intel Core i7-8665UE, both with an average score of 1193 and a delta of 0%.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive: the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 is the superior processor for raw compute performance across all tested Cinebench workloads. It wins every head-to-head test by approximately 38%, whether the workload is single-core or multi-core. The Xeon's four physical cores, 10 MB of L3 cache, quad-channel DDR4 memory support with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it the appropriate choice for server or workstation builds where rendering performance and memory throughput are priorities.

The Intel Core i3-4170, despite its higher base clock of 3.70 GHz, cannot overcome the Xeon's architectural advantages in any benchmark. However, the i3 has its own strengths: it includes Intel HD 4400 integrated graphics, draws only 54 watts compared to the Xeon's 140 watts, and has a launch MSRP of $117. It uses the more common Intel Socket 1150 and supports DDR3 memory, which may be more economical in existing desktop systems. For users who need integrated graphics, lower power consumption, or a platform that does not require a separate GPU, the i3 is the practical choice, but it should not be selected for maximum compute performance.

The data shows that the Xeon's 38% performance lead is consistent across all five recorded benchmarks, making it the unequivocal winner for users who prioritize Cinebench rendering or similar multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The i3's zero wins in the head-to-head tests reinforce this conclusion. Users with ECC memory requirements or those building a workstation with multiple expansion cards will find the Xeon's feature set necessary. Users building a simple desktop with integrated graphics and minimal power draw will find the i3 adequate, but they should expect substantially lower performance in compute-heavy applications.