CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-4170T and the Intel Xeon W3580 represent two very different eras of Intel desktop and workstation silicon, yet their average benchmark scores land within a hair of each other. The Core i3-4170T, a low-power Haswell dual-core, posts an average score of 1072, while the older, power-hungry Nehalem-based Xeon W3580 quad-core manages 1064. This places both chips in the bottom third of all CPUs, with the i3 at the 30th percentile and the Xeon at the 29th. Despite the near-identical averages, their performance profiles diverge sharply across individual workloads, making the choice between them a matter of workload, not raw aggregate capability.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W3580 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, a clean sweep of five tests. The margins are consistent and decisive, hovering around 14% in the Xeon’s favor across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 311 against the i3’s 268, a delta of -13.8% for the i3. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 1298 versus 1120, a 13.7% gap. The R23 multi-core test shows the same story: 3092 for the Xeon against 2667 for the i3, again a 13.7% deficit for the smaller chip.

Single-core results tell a nearly identical tale, which is notable given the i3’s newer architecture. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 183, beating the i3’s 157 by 14.2%. The R23 single-core test shows 436 versus 376, a 13.8% margin. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.33 GHz, boosted up to 3.60 GHz, clearly outweighs any generational efficiency gains from the i3’s 3.20 GHz fixed clock. There is no test in this set where the Core i3 pulls ahead; its best relative showing is a 13.7% loss in R20 and R23 multi-core, while its worst is the 14.2% single-core deficit in R20.

What makes this sweep striking is the underlying hardware disparity. The Xeon packs 4 cores and 8 threads against the i3’s 2 cores and 4 threads, and it carries 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i3’s 3 MB. Yet the i3’s 22 nm process and Haswell architecture manage to keep the gap under 15% in every test, despite facing a processor with double the core count. The data suggests that per-clock efficiency on the i3 is substantially higher, but the Xeon’s extra cores and 3.60 GHz boost clock are enough to secure a win across the board.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4170T edges out the Xeon W3580 on average, scoring 1072 against the Xeon’s 1064. The i3’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-5287U at 1072 (0% delta), while the Xeon’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-9100HL at 1065 (-0.1% delta).

Q: How big is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon W3580 leads by roughly 14% in all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 3092 versus the i3’s 2667, a 13.7% difference. The R15 multi-core test shows a 13.8% gap (311 vs. 268), and R20 multi-core shows 13.7% (1298 vs. 1120).

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

A: No. The Xeon W3580 wins both single-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 183 against the i3’s 157 (14.2% ahead), and in R23 single-core it scores 436 versus 376 (13.8% ahead).

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i3-4170T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Xeon W3580 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon also has a larger shared L3 cache: 8 MB versus the i3’s 3 MB.

Q: How do their power requirements differ?

A: The Core i3-4170T has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Xeon W3580 has a TDP of 130 watts. That is a 95-watt difference, making the i3 far more suitable for low-power builds despite its lower performance in these tests.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W3580 supports ECC memory, while the Core i3-4170T does not. The Xeon also uses a triple-channel memory bus, whereas the i3 uses dual-channel DDR3.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W3580 is the clear winner for any workload that leans on multi-threaded performance. Its 4-core, 8-thread configuration delivers a 13.7% to 13.8% advantage in every multi-core Cinebench test, from R15 through R23. That makes it the better option for rendering, video encoding, or any heavily threaded compute task that can utilize more than two cores. The Xeon’s 8 MB of shared L3 cache likely helps in data-intensive workloads where the i3’s smaller 3 MB pool becomes a bottleneck.

The Xeon also wins on single-core performance, albeit by a similar margin. With a 3.60 GHz boost clock and a 3.33 GHz base, it outruns the i3’s fixed 3.20 GHz in both R20 and R23 single-core tests. For tasks that are lightly threaded but clock-sensitive, the Xeon is still the faster part, even though it is built on an older 45 nm process.

The Core i3-4170T, despite losing every benchmark, wins in the efficiency and platform flexibility arenas. Its 35-watt TDP is a fraction of the Xeon’s 130-watt draw, making it the only sensible choice for compact, low-power, or passively cooled systems. It also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4400), which the Xeon lacks entirely, so a build with the i3 does not require a discrete GPU. The i3’s modern 22 nm process and Haswell architecture give it a better performance-per-watt profile, even if the absolute performance is lower.

For a server or workstation role, the Xeon’s ECC memory support and triple-channel memory bus are decisive features. The i3 has no ECC support and a narrower dual-channel bus. If the workload demands data integrity or high memory throughput, the Xeon is the only viable option, despite its age and power appetite.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core i3-4170T uses 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon W3580 uses 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are close but not identical: the i3 runs at 3.20 GHz with no boost, while the Xeon runs at 3.33 GHz and boosts to 3.60 GHz. The Xeon’s TDP is 130 watts, nearly four times the i3’s 35 watts.

Cache hierarchies diverge significantly. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 3 MB on the i3 and 8 MB on the Xeon. The process nodes are generations apart: the i3 uses Intel’s 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while the Xeon uses 45 nm with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die.

Memory support shows the Xeon’s workstation pedigree. Both support DDR3, but the i3 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses a triple-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe generations also differ: the i3 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon offers Gen 2. The i3 includes Intel HD 4400 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none.

The sockets are incompatible. The i3 fits Intel Socket 1150, while the Xeon requires Intel Socket 1366. The i3 was released on 2015-03-29, while the Xeon predates it, launching on 2009-08-08. Both are end-of-life and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Their part numbers are SR1TC for the i3 and SLBET for the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these chips is vast, reflecting a six-year span in Intel’s design philosophy. The Core i3-4170T is built on the Haswell architecture, a 22 nm design that emphasizes efficiency and per-core throughput. Its 177 mm² die packs 1,400 million transistors, a density that was impossible on the older process. The Xeon W3580 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, on a 45 nm process. It carries only 731 million transistors on a much larger 263 mm² die, showing how far Intel’s process technology advanced between the two releases.

Core organization is the most striking difference. The i3 is a dual-core design with Hyper-Threading, yielding 4 threads. The Xeon is a true quad-core with Hyper-Threading, yielding 8 threads. The Xeon’s larger 8 MB shared L3 cache is double the i3’s 3 MB, a direct consequence of its workstation target market where larger working sets are common. The i3’s per-core L1 and L2 sizes are identical to the Xeon’s (64 KB and 256 KB per core), but the i3’s newer architecture extracts more performance from each core, as evidenced by how close its scores are despite having half the cores.

The memory controllers reflect their intended platforms. The i3’s dual-channel DDR3 controller with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth is standard for mainstream desktops. The Xeon’s triple-channel controller, with no listed bandwidth, is designed for higher throughput in server workloads. ECC support on the Xeon further signals its reliability-focused design, while the i3’s absence of ECC and presence of integrated graphics point to consumer desktop usage. The Xeon’s PCIe Gen 2 support is older than the i3’s Gen 3, a notable generational regression for the older part, but its overall thread count and cache size keep it competitive in raw compute benchmarks.

The process node alone explains much of the performance-per-watt divide. The i3’s 22 nm process allows a 35-watt TDP while still delivering 30th percentile performance. The Xeon’s 45 nm process requires 130 watts for a 29th percentile result. In essence, the Xeon throws more than three times the power at the problem to achieve a slightly lower average score, but its extra cores and cache make it the winner in every head-to-head test where multi-threading matters.