Intel Core i3-4170 vs Intel Xeon E5645 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unequivocal. Across every recorded Cinebench test, the Intel Xeon E5645 outpaces the Intel Core i3-4170 by a remarkably consistent margin. In the multi-core tests, the Xeon E5645 scores 421 in Cinebench R15 versus the Core i3-4170's 306, a 37.6% advantage. The gap widens slightly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 1758 against 1275, a 37.9% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the same story: 4187 for the Xeon, 3038 for the Core i3, a 37.8% difference.

What is striking is that the Xeon does not merely win on raw thread count; it also wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon E5645 scores 248, while the Core i3-4170 manages 180, a 37.8% margin. Cinebench R23 single-core repeats the pattern: 591 versus 429, again a 37.8% gap. The Core i3-4170 has a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz, but the Xeon's older Westmere architecture still delivers higher single-thread performance in these measured workloads. The data records 5 wins for the Xeon and 0 for the Core i3 in this head-to-head comparison.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar but slightly less dramatic story. The Xeon E5645 holds an average benchmark score of 1211, placing it at the 34th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Core i3-4170 averages 1193, at the 33rd percentile. This places both chips in the same general performance tier despite the Xeon's clean sweep of the Cinebench suite. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-7300T at an identical 1211 average score, with a 0% delta, and the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 at 1212, just 0.1% higher. The Core i3-4170 sits alongside the AMD Athlon PRO 300U and Intel Core i7-8665UE, both at 1193, with zero delta between them.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon E5645 is built on the Westmere-EP architecture, manufactured on a 32 nm process node. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. This is a six-core, twelve-thread part with a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 2.67 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a substantial 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon supports DDR3 memory through a triple-channel interface, and includes ECC memory support. It uses PCIe Gen 2 and targets the server and workstation market segment. The chip is end-of-life, released in March 2010.

The Intel Core i3-4170 is a Haswell desktop part, built on a 22 nm process. It contains 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 177 mm² die. It has only two cores and four threads, with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and no boost clock. Its cache design is much more modest: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and just 3 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is DDR3 through a dual-channel interface, with a measured memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. Unlike the Xeon, it does not support ECC memory. It uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core i3 includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4400, a feature entirely absent from the Xeon. It is also end-of-life, with a release date of April 2014 and a launch MSRP of $117.

The process node difference is significant. The 22 nm Haswell die is denser and more power-efficient per transistor, but the Xeon's 32 nm design allows for a much larger L3 cache and twice the physical core count. The Xeon's 80 W TDP is higher than the Core i3's 54 W, reflecting its server-class heritage and additional cores. The Core i3 has the advantage in PCIe generation, supporting Gen 3 versus the Xeon's Gen 2, which matters for modern expansion cards and NVMe storage. The Xeon counters with ECC memory support, which is critical for error-correcting workloads in servers and workstations.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy, but the intended use case changes the conclusion. The Xeon E5645 wins every benchmark recorded here, and it does so by a consistent 37.6% to 37.9% margin across multi-core and single-core tests alike. For any workload that relies on CPU compute, the Xeon is the faster processor. The six cores and twelve threads provide a structural advantage that the Core i3's higher clock speed cannot overcome. The Xeon's 12 MB of L3 cache versus 3 MB also helps in cache-sensitive applications.

However, the Core i3-4170 is not without its merits. It operates at a lower 54 W TDP, which translates to less heat and potentially lower system power draw. It supports PCIe Gen 3, which is essential for modern graphics cards and storage devices. It includes integrated graphics, meaning a dedicated GPU is not required for basic display output. And it has a launch MSRP of $117, though pricing is not a factor in this analysis. The Core i3 fits into a standard desktop platform with a smaller form factor and lower overall system complexity.

The database percentiles show both chips are near the bottom of the current CPU landscape, at 34 and 33 percent respectively. Neither is a high-performance part by modern standards. But within this specific comparison, the Xeon E5645 is the outright winner in compute performance. Users who need maximum CPU throughput, especially in multi-threaded workloads, should choose the Xeon. Users who need a low-power desktop processor with modern PCIe support and integrated graphics should choose the Core i3, accepting the significant performance deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5645 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4187 against the Core i3-4170's 3038, a 37.8% advantage. The margin is similar in Cinebench R15 (421 versus 306, 37.6%) and Cinebench R20 (1758 versus 1275, 37.9%).

Q: Does the Core i3-4170 win any single-core tests?

A: No. Despite its higher 3.70 GHz base clock, the Core i3-4170 loses every single-core benchmark. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon E5645 scores 591 versus 429, a 37.8% lead. The same margin appears in Cinebench R20 single-core (248 versus 180).

Q: What memory features differ between the two?

A: The Xeon E5645 supports triple-channel DDR3 memory and includes ECC memory support. The Core i3-4170 uses dual-channel DDR3 with a measured bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s and does not support ECC memory.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i3-4170 includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4400. The Xeon E5645 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon E5645 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Core i3-4170 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5645 has an average benchmark score of 1211, placing it at the 34th percentile of all CPUs. The Core i3-4170 averages 1193, at the 33rd percentile. They are close in overall average, but the Xeon wins every individual Cinebench test.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5645 is the clear winner in every compute benchmark recorded in the database. Its 37.6% to 37.9% margins across all five Cinebench tests make it the superior choice for CPU-intensive applications such as video rendering, 3D modeling, scientific computation, and server-side processing. The 12 MB of L3 cache and 12 threads give it headroom for workloads that scale with core count. The triple-channel memory interface and ECC support make it suitable for reliability-focused environments where data integrity is paramount. For any user who prioritizes raw processing power above all else, the Xeon is the only rational choice from this pair.

The Core i3-4170 wins in areas that do not show up in the Cinebench scores. Its 54 W TDP is significantly lower than the Xeon's 80 W, making it easier to cool in compact desktop systems. It supports PCIe Gen 3, which is backward compatible with Gen 2 devices but offers newer bandwidth capabilities for modern hardware. The integrated Intel HD 4400 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic desktop tasks, reducing system cost and complexity. The dual-channel memory interface is sufficient for typical desktop workloads, and the 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth is adequate for most applications. The Haswell architecture on 22 nm is newer than Westmere on 32 nm, which may offer better instruction set support for some modern software.

In practical terms, the Core i3-4170 is better suited for a general-purpose desktop build where power efficiency, integrated graphics, and modern PCIe support matter more than peak CPU throughput. The Xeon E5645 is better suited for a workstation or server where CPU performance is the bottleneck and the lack of integrated graphics is not a concern. The database shows no scenario where the Core i3 wins a performance benchmark, so any decision in its favor must be based on platform features and power characteristics rather than speed.