Intel Core i3-4330 vs Intel Xeon E5620 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a remarkably consistent pattern across all five Cinebench tests: the Intel Xeon E5620 wins every single head-to-head matchup, though by margins so narrow they are within typical run-to-run variance. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon E5620 scores 301 against the Core i3-4330's 298, a 1% advantage. The R20 multicore test shows a similar story: 1255 versus 1245, a 0.8% lead for the server part. Single-core results follow the same trajectory, with the Xeon E5620 posting 177 in R20 single-core versus 175 for the Core i3-4330, a 1.1% margin, and 422 versus 418 in R23 single-core, a 1% edge. The R23 multicore test rounds out the sweep: 2989 for the Xeon E5620 against 2966 for the Core i3-4330, another 0.8% difference.

The aggregate benchmark scores reinforce this near-parity. The Xeon E5620 carries an average benchmark score of 1029, while the Core i3-4330 sits at 1020. That 9-point gap translates to less than a 1% difference in overall performance, which explains why both processors occupy the same 28th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Xeon E5620's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B at 1027 (0.2% behind), the Intel Pentium G4560 at 1031 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i7-5650U at 1027 (0.2% behind), and the Intel Core i3-4340 at 1026 (0.3% behind). The Core i3-4330's nearest rivals are similarly clustered: the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 at 1022 (0.2% ahead), the Intel Core i3-4160 at 1017 (0.3% behind), the Intel Core i7-975 at 1023 (0.3% ahead), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U at 1024 (0.3% ahead).

What is striking here is not the magnitude of any single victory but the consistency of the Xeon E5620's edge. Across five different Cinebench versions, spanning both single-core and multi-core workloads, the delta never exceeds 1.1%. The largest win for the Xeon E5620 comes in R20 single-core at 1.1%, while the smallest is the 0.8% margin seen in both R20 multicore and R23 multicore. The Core i3-4330, for its part, never manages to pull ahead in any recorded test, leaving the wins tally at 5-0 in favor of the older, server-oriented chip.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is unusual because the data shows the Xeon E5620 winning in every category, but the margins tell a more nuanced story. In multi-threaded workloads, represented by the three multicore Cinebench tests, the Xeon E5620's advantage ranges from 0.8% to 1%. That edge comes despite the Core i3-4330 having a substantially higher base clock of 3.50 GHz against the Xeon E5620's 2.40 GHz, and despite the Core i3-4330 being a newer 22 nm Haswell part. The Xeon E5620's extra cores and threads (4 cores, 8 threads versus 2 cores, 4 threads) appear to compensate for its lower clock speed in multi-threaded rendering.

For single-threaded performance, the picture is nearly identical. The Xeon E5620 leads by 1.1% in R20 single-core and 1% in R23 single-core, despite having a boost clock of only 2.67 GHz compared to the Core i3-4330's fixed 3.50 GHz. This suggests that the older Westmere architecture, when boosted, can hold its own against the much newer Haswell design in lightly threaded tasks, at least within the specific Cinebench workloads recorded.

The Core i3-4330 does not win any benchmark in the database, so there is no workload category where the data supports choosing it on raw performance. However, the differences are so small that in practice, users would be hard-pressed to notice any difference in real-world applications. The Xeon E5620's wins are statistically meaningful but practically negligible. The Core i3-4330's closest approach is in R20 multicore, where it trails by just 10 points out of 1255, a 0.8% gap that falls well within normal benchmark variance.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, even if their benchmark scores are not. The Intel Xeon E5620 is built on the Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, using a 32 nm process node from Intel. It packs 1,170 million transistors onto a 239 mm² die. The Core i3-4330, by contrast, uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process, with 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 177 mm² die. The newer process allows Haswell to fit more transistors in less space, which explains the higher transistor count despite the smaller die.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. Both parts share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations, but the shared L3 cache tells a different story. The Xeon E5620 offers 12 MB of shared L3, while the Core i3-4330 has only 4 MB. That threefold difference in L3 capacity is a major architectural differentiator, and it likely contributes to the Xeon E5620's ability to match the Core i3-4330 despite its much lower clock speeds.

Memory support also differs. The Xeon E5620 uses triple-channel DDR3 and supports ECC memory, a hallmark of its server/workstation positioning. The Core i3-4330 uses dual-channel DDR3 and has no ECC support. The Xeon E5620 also runs PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i3-4330 has PCIe Gen 3, which offers higher bandwidth for expansion cards. The Core i3-4330 includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, whereas the Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics at all, reflecting its server heritage where a discrete GPU or no GPU at all is the norm.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon E5620 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the Core i3-4330 uses Intel Socket 1150. This means motherboard choice is a hard constraint; there is no upgrade path between these two without changing platforms. The Xeon E5620 is marked as end-of-life, while the Core i3-4330 has no production status recorded. The Xeon E5620's TDP is 80 watts against the Core i3-4330's 54 watts, a difference that matters for cooling and power delivery, though neither part is especially demanding by modern standards. The Xeon E5620 also has a slightly higher boost clock of 2.67 GHz versus its base 2.40 GHz, while the Core i3-4330 has no boost capability and runs at a fixed 3.50 GHz.

The Verdict

The data makes one thing clear: there is no performance-based reason to choose the Core i3-4330 over the Xeon E5620 in the recorded benchmarks. The Xeon E5620 wins all five tests, with margins from 0.8% to 1.1%. The aggregate scores confirm the ordering, 1029 versus 1020, and both parts sit at the 28th percentile among all CPUs. If raw Cinebench performance is the only criterion, the Xeon E5620 is the pick, but the margin is so thin that it would be indistinguishable in daily use.

That said, the architectural differences point to different use cases. The Xeon E5620 is a server/workstation part with ECC memory support, triple-channel memory, and 12 MB of L3 cache. It is designed for environments where data integrity and multi-threaded throughput matter more than clock speed. The Core i3-4330 is a desktop part with integrated graphics, PCIe Gen 3, and a much higher base clock, suited for general-purpose desktop tasks where the iGPU removes the need for a discrete graphics card.

For a user building a system from scratch with the data in mind, the choice hinges on platform requirements rather than performance. If the application demands ECC memory or leverages the larger L3 cache, the Xeon E5620 is the logical choice, provided the Socket 1366 platform is acceptable. If the user needs integrated graphics or prefers the newer Socket 1150 platform, the Core i3-4330 offers nearly identical performance in the tested workloads, with a lower TDP and a more modern feature set. The data does not support a strong verdict either way on performance grounds alone; it supports a verdict based on platform fit and feature needs.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 301 versus 298 in R15, 1255 versus 1245 in R20, and 2989 versus 2966 in R23, with margins of 1%, 0.8%, and 0.8% respectively.

Q: Does the Core i3-4330 win any benchmark in the database?

A: No. The head-to-head results show 5 wins for the Intel Xeon E5620 and 0 wins for the Core i3-4330 across all recorded tests.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon E5620's average score of 1029 is 0.2% behind the Intel Pentium G4560 (1031) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i3-4340 (1026). The Core i3-4330's average score of 1020 is 0.2% behind the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 (1022) and 0.3% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U (1024).

Q: What is the L3 cache difference between the two?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i3-4330 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes for the Xeon E5620, which supports ECC memory as a server/workstation part. The Core i3-4330 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the Core i3-4330 uses Intel Socket 1150. They are not interchangeable, so motherboard choice fully determines which processor can be used.