CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5620 and Intel Core i3-4340 occupy the same performance tier despite coming from different eras and market segments. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Xeon E5620 at 1029 and the Core i3-4340 at 1026. However, the data reveals a clear split in how they achieve parity: the Xeon leverages eight threads and a large shared cache, while the Core i3 relies on a much higher base clock and a newer architecture. This makes the choice between them a matter of workload priorities rather than raw speed.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5620 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are razor-thin. Its largest victory is a 0.6% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 177 against the Core i3-4340’s 176. In multi-core tests, the Xeon’s advantage shrinks to between 0.2% and 0.3%. This means the Xeon is technically the faster part in all measured scenarios, but the differences are so small they would be imperceptible in real-world use.

The Core i3-4340’s strength does not show up in these specific benchmark wins. Instead, its advantages are architectural and practical. It consumes 54 watts compared to the Xeon’s 80 watts, making it the more power-efficient choice. It also includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a separate GPU in basic systems. The Core i3 operates on the Intel Socket 1150 platform with PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon uses the older Socket 1366 with PCIe Gen 2. For a desktop user building a new system, the Core i3 offers a modern feature set and lower power draw, even if the benchmark scores show the Xeon marginally ahead.

The Xeon E5620 wins on server-oriented features. It supports ECC memory and uses a triple-channel memory bus, while the Core i3 lacks ECC support and uses a dual-channel bus. The Xeon also has 12 MB of shared L3 cache versus the Core i3’s 4 MB. For workloads that benefit from large caches or require memory reliability, the Xeon is the clear choice. Its market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, reflecting its design for sustained, multi-threaded workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 301 versus the Core i3-4340’s 300, a 0.3% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1255 against 1252, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2989 against 2983, both 0.2% leads.

Q: Is the single-core performance different between the two?

A: The Xeon E5620 leads in single-core tests as well, but by a negligible margin. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 177 versus 176 for the Core i3-4340, a 0.6% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 422 versus 421, a 0.2% lead.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon E5620 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4340 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite having half the cores, the Core i3’s higher clock speed of 3.60 GHz (versus the Xeon’s 2.40 GHz base and 2.67 GHz boost) brings its benchmark scores nearly level.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5620 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-4340 does not list ECC support. The Xeon also features a triple-channel memory bus, while the Core i3 uses a dual-channel bus.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-4340 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5620 has an average benchmark score of 1029, while the Core i3-4340 scores 1026. The Xeon is 0.3% ahead of the Core i3 in this metric, and both sit at the 28th percentile among all CPUs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a consistent but tiny advantage for the Xeon E5620 across all five tests. The largest margin is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon scores 177 and the Core i3-4340 scores 176, giving the Xeon a 0.6% lead. This is notable because the Core i3 has a 50% higher base clock (3.60 GHz versus 2.40 GHz) and a newer architecture, yet still falls behind in single-threaded performance.

In multi-core workloads, the gap narrows. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the Xeon at 301 and the Core i3 at 300, a 0.3% difference. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1255 versus 1252, and Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 2989 versus 2983, both 0.2% margins. The Xeon’s eight threads and 12 MB of L3 cache compensate for its lower clock speed, allowing it to edge out the Core i3’s four threads and 4 MB of cache.

The single-core results are particularly telling. The Xeon’s 422 points in Cinebench R23 single-core beats the Core i3’s 421, despite the Core i3’s much higher clock speed. This suggests the Xeon’s Westmere architecture is more efficient per clock in this workload, or that the benchmark favors the Xeon’s cache configuration. Either way, the data shows the Xeon wins all five head-to-head tests, with a total win count of 5 versus 0 for the Core i3.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Xeon E5620 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4340 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 2.67 GHz, whereas the Core i3 runs at a fixed 3.60 GHz with no boost clock listed. The Xeon has a TDP of 80 watts, while the Core i3 draws 54 watts.

Memory support also differs significantly. Both support DDR3, but the Xeon uses a triple-channel memory bus while the Core i3 uses dual-channel. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core i3 does not. The Xeon’s L3 cache is 12 MB shared, compared to 4 MB shared on the Core i3. Both have the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes of 64 KB and 256 KB respectively.

The socket and platform are completely different. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the Core i3 uses Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 2 support, while the Core i3 has PCIe Gen 3. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the Core i3 includes Intel HD 4600. The Xeon is marketed for Server/Workstation use, while the Core i3 is a Desktop part. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Core i3’s production status is not listed.

The manufacturing process also differs. The Xeon is built on a 32 nm process with 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The Core i3 uses a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. Both have locked multipliers, neither being unlocked for overclocking.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5620 is based on the Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, and belongs to the Xeon (Westmere-EP) generation. It was released on 2010-03-15. The Core i3-4340 uses the Haswell architecture with the Haswell codename, from the Core i3 (Haswell) generation, released on 2013-08-31. This three-year gap explains the process node difference: Westmere uses 32 nm, while Haswell uses 22 nm.

The transistor count and die size reflect the architectural changes. The Xeon packs 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die, while the Core i3 fits 1,400 million transistors into a smaller 177 mm² die. This density improvement comes from the newer 22 nm process. Despite having fewer cores, the Core i3 has more transistors, likely due to the integrated HD 4600 graphics and newer memory controller.

Cache architecture shows a major difference. Both have identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) caches, but the shared L3 cache is three times larger on the Xeon at 12 MB versus 4 MB on the Core i3. This larger cache likely helps the Xeon compensate for its lower clock speed in multi-threaded workloads. The memory bus width also differs, with the Xeon supporting triple-channel memory versus dual-channel on the Core i3, giving the server part a theoretical bandwidth advantage.

The feature sets diverge based on their target markets. The Xeon includes ECC memory support and is built for server reliability, while the Core i3 targets desktop users with integrated graphics and a more power-efficient design. The PCIe generation difference (Gen 2 on the Xeon, Gen 3 on the Core i3) means the newer part supports faster peripheral bandwidth. The Xeon’s boost clock of 2.67 GHz is modest compared to the Core i3’s fixed 3.60 GHz, yet the benchmark scores remain nearly identical, highlighting how thread count and cache size can offset clock speed advantages.