CPU Comparison
Intel Core i3-4330
Xeon E5620
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i3-4330 vs Intel Xeon E5620
The Intel Core i3-4330 and Intel Xeon E5620 occupy the same performance percentile (28th) and have nearly identical average benchmark scores (1020 vs 1029), yet they are fundamentally different designs. The data shows a consistent, if narrow, victory for the Xeon E5620 across every Cinebench test, with deltas ranging from -0.8% to -1.1%. However, the Core i3-4330 is a modern dual-core Haswell part with a 54 W TDP and integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5620 is a four-year-older, 80 W, quad-core server chip with ECC memory support. The verdict depends entirely on workload priorities: the Xeon offers slightly better multi-threaded throughput and server features, while the Core i3 provides a newer platform, lower power draw, and integrated graphics for a desktop build. Neither part is a clear winner; the choice is between marginal performance and platform suitability.
The Verdict
Benchmark results indicate that the Intel Xeon E5620 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but by margins so small they border on statistical noise. The largest gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon scores 177 against the Core i3-4330's 175, a 1.1% difference. In multi-core tests, the Xeon leads by 0.8% in both Cinebench R20 (1255 vs 1245) and Cinebench R23 (2989 vs 2966). The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the Xeon E5620 sits at 1029, while the Core i3-4330 is at 1020, a difference of less than 1%. Given this, the Xeon E5620 is the pick for anyone who needs the absolute highest benchmark numbers, even if the gain is negligible.
However, the Core i3-4330 is the better choice for a desktop system that prioritizes efficiency and simplicity. Its 54 W TDP is 32.5% lower than the Xeon's 80 W, and it includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The Core i3 also uses the Intel Socket 1150 platform with PCIe Gen 3, whereas the Xeon requires Socket 1366 and PCIe Gen 2. For users who value the newer Haswell architecture's features, lower power consumption, and integrated graphics over a tiny performance edge, the Core i3-4330 is the logical selection. For those who need ECC memory support and a server-grade platform, the Xeon E5620 is the only option, despite its age and higher power draw.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Core i3-4330 is built on Intel's 22 nm Haswell architecture with 1,400 million transistors packed into a 177 mm² die. It features 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, a base clock of 3.50 GHz, and no boost clock. Its cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E5620, in contrast, uses the older 32 nm Westmere-EP process with 1,170 million transistors on a larger 239 mm² die. It doubles the core count to 4 physical cores with 8 threads, but runs at a much lower 2.40 GHz base clock, boosting to 2.67 GHz. Its L3 cache is three times larger at 12 MB shared, while L1 and L2 remain the same 64 KB and 256 KB per core.
Memory support diverges significantly. Both support DDR3, but the Core i3-4330 uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the Xeon E5620 employs triple-channel. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core i3. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core i3 offers Gen 3, while the Xeon is limited to Gen 2. The Xeon lacks integrated graphics entirely, whereas the Core i3 includes Intel HD 4600. The production status also differs, with the Xeon E5620 marked as end-of-life, while the Core i3 has no such designation. These architectural differences explain why the Xeon, despite having twice the cores and more cache, only marginally outperforms the Core i3 in benchmarks: its much lower clock speed and older process node negate its core advantage.
Where Each One Wins
The Xeon E5620 wins in every benchmark category measured, but the victories are narrow. In multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon's 4-core/8-thread configuration gives it a slight edge: it scores 301 vs 298 in Cinebench R15, 1255 vs 1245 in R20, and 2989 vs 2966 in R23. These are consistent wins, but the deltas of -0.8% to -1% indicate that the extra cores do not translate into meaningful real-world gains in these tests. The Xeon also wins in single-core tests, scoring 177 vs 175 in R20 and 422 vs 418 in R23, which is surprising given its much lower 2.40 GHz base clock compared to the Core i3's 3.50 GHz. This suggests that the Xeon's architecture compensates well for its clock deficit, but the differences are still under 1.1%.
The Core i3-4330 wins in areas not captured by the benchmark scores. Its 54 W TDP is significantly lower than the Xeon's 80 W, making it more suitable for compact or power-conscious builds. The integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics mean the Core i3 can run a display without a discrete GPU, a capability the Xeon lacks entirely. The Core i3 also has a newer socket (1150 vs 1366) and PCIe Gen 3 support, which may offer better compatibility with modern components. In terms of pure benchmark performance, the Xeon is the winner, but for desktop usability and efficiency, the Core i3 holds clear advantages. The data shows the Xeon's wins are too small to be decisive, while the Core i3's feature set addresses different needs.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?
A: The Intel Xeon E5620 has a higher average benchmark score of 1029, compared to the Intel Core i3-4330's 1020. The difference is 0.9%.
Q: Does the Core i3-4330 ever beat the Xeon E5620 in any benchmark?
A: No. According to the head-to-head data, the Xeon E5620 wins all five Cinebench tests, with the Core i3-4330 losing by margins between 0.8% and 1.1%.
Q: What is the core and thread difference between the two?
A: The Core i3-4330 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E5620 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon has double the core count.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No. Only the Xeon E5620 supports ECC memory; the Core i3-4330 does not have this feature.
Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?
A: The Core i3-4330 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.
Q: How do they compare in single-core performance?
A: The Xeon E5620 leads slightly in single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 177 vs 175, and in R23, it scores 422 vs 418, a 0.9% advantage in both cases.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The most striking result in the head-to-head data is how consistent the Xeon E5620's victories are, despite its architectural disadvantages. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 301 against the Core i3-4330's 298, a 1% lead. This is the largest multi-core delta. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon again wins, 1255 vs 1245, with a 0.8% margin. The R23 multi-core test shows the same pattern: 2989 vs 2966, another 0.8% lead. These results are notable because the Xeon operates at a 2.40 GHz base clock, which is 31% lower than the Core i3's 3.50 GHz, yet it still manages to outperform the dual-core chip in multi-threaded workloads. The Xeon's 4 physical cores and 12 MB L3 cache clearly compensate for its clock speed deficit.
Single-core results are even more telling. The Xeon wins Cinebench R20 single-core with a score of 177, just 1.1% ahead of the Core i3's 175. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 422, a 0.9% lead over 418. This is counterintuitive, as single-core performance typically scales with clock speed, and the Core i3 has a 1.1 GHz advantage in base clock. The data indicates that the Xeon's Westmere architecture is remarkably efficient per clock in these tests, or that the benchmark is not purely clock-bound. Regardless, the practical takeaway is that the two processors are virtually indistinguishable in performance. The Xeon's largest win is only 1.1%, and its smallest is 0.8%. In real-world terms, these differences would be imperceptible to most users.
Specification Differences
The specification sheet highlights the generational gap between these two Intel parts. The Core i3-4330 uses a 22 nm process node and has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while the Xeon E5620 uses a 32 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The Core i3 has 2 cores and 4 threads, a 3.50 GHz base clock, and no boost clock. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, a 2.40 GHz base clock, and a 2.67 GHz boost clock. Cache sizes differ only in L3: the Core i3 has 4 MB shared, while the Xeon has 12 MB shared. L1 and L2 are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core, respectively.
Power and platform specs diverge sharply. The Core i3 has a 54 W TDP, while the Xeon is rated at 80 W. The Core i3 uses Intel Socket 1150 and supports PCIe Gen 3, whereas the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366 and PCIe Gen 2. Memory channels differ, with the Core i3 using dual-channel and the Xeon using triple-channel DDR3. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon, and integrated graphics are exclusive to the Core i3 (Intel HD 4600). The market segments also differ: the Core i3 is a Desktop part, while the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the Core i3 has no production status listed. Release dates confirm the gap: the Core i3 launched in 2013, while the Xeon launched in 2010.