Intel Core i3-4360T vs Intel Xeon W3570 Comparison

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-4360T wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Xeon W3570, but by remarkably narrow margins. Across five Cinebench tests, the largest gap is a mere 1.1%, meaning these two processors are effectively performance equals in raw compute. The Xeon W3570, despite its server-grade heritage and double the physical core count, cannot overcome the architectural advantages of the newer Haswell design. The i3-4360T also holds a slight edge in the overall percentile ranking, sitting at the 26th percentile of all CPUs compared to the Xeon's 25th. This is a case where generational improvements in instructions per clock and power efficiency completely neutralize a core-count disadvantage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive result for the Intel Core i3-4360T comes in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where it scores 282 against the Xeon W3570's 279. That 1.1% delta is the largest in the entire comparison, and it is particularly telling because this is the test where the Xeon's four cores and eight threads should theoretically shine. Instead, the i3's two physical cores with Hyper-Threading, running at the same 3.20 GHz base clock, keep pace with the older Nehalem design. The data shows the i3-4360T also wins the Cinebench R20 multi-core test with a score of 1175 versus 1165, a 0.9% advantage, and the R23 multi-core test at 2799 versus 2776, a 0.8% edge. These results suggest the Haswell architecture's superior instruction handling more than compensates for having half the physical cores.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, but with even smaller margins. The i3-4360T takes the Cinebench R20 single-core test with a score of 165 against the Xeon's 164, a mere 0.6% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i3 scores 395 versus 392, another 0.8% win. These single-threaded results are perhaps the most surprising, as the Xeon W3570 has a boost clock of 3.47 GHz, which should give it an advantage in lightly-threaded workloads. The fact that it does not suggests that the Haswell core design is simply more efficient at executing instructions per clock cycle. The overall average benchmark score reflects this pattern: the i3-4360T averages 963 points, while the Xeon W3570 averages 955 points, an 8-point difference that places the i3 in the 26th percentile versus the Xeon's 25th percentile.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T has a higher average benchmark score of 963, compared to the Intel Xeon W3570's average of 955.

Q: Does the Xeon W3570 win any benchmark test?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Intel Core i3-4360T wins all five benchmark tests, from Cinebench R15 multi-core to Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two CPUs?

A: The gap is extremely small. The largest margin in any test is 1.1% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (282 vs 279), with other tests showing deltas between 0.6% and 0.9%.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-4360T has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 has a boost clock of 3.47 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-4360T does not have a boost clock listed in the data.

Q: What are the market segments for these two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 is targeted at the Server/Workstation segment, while the Intel Core i3-4360T is a Desktop processor.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-4360T wins in every measurable performance category, but the context of those wins matters for real-world usage. In multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the i3-4360T edges out the Xeon W3570 by less than 1% in most cases. This means for users running video rendering, 3D modeling, or batch photo processing, the i3-4360T provides essentially identical performance to the Xeon, despite having half the cores. The i3's wins in single-core tests (0.6% in R20 and 0.8% in R23) also suggest it is the better choice for everyday desktop tasks like web browsing, office applications, and light productivity, where single-thread performance is paramount.

The Intel Xeon W3570, while losing all benchmarks, still has theoretical advantages that do not show up in Cinebench scores. Its 8 MB of shared L3 cache is double the i3-4360T's 4 MB, which could benefit certain cache-sensitive workloads. It also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the i3-4360T, making it more suitable for error-critical compute tasks. However, the benchmark data does not quantify these advantages, and in the tests measured, the Xeon's higher core count and cache size do not translate into superior scores. The Xeon's 130 W TDP also suggests it is designed for sustained multi-core loads, but the i3-4360T's 35 W TDP achieves the same or better results with far less power draw.

Specification Differences

The most striking difference between these two processors is the core count, with the Xeon W3570 featuring 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4360T has 2 cores and 4 threads. Both have the same 3.20 GHz base clock, but the Xeon has a boost clock of 3.47 GHz, while the i3 has no boost clock listed. The thermal design power differs dramatically: the Xeon consumes 130 W versus the i3's 35 W. Socket compatibility is entirely different, with the Xeon using Intel Socket 1366 and the i3 using Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the i3 supports dual-channel DDR3. The Xeon also has ECC memory support, which the i3 lacks. PCIe generation differs as well, with the Xeon using Gen 2 and the i3 using Gen 3. The i3 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. Production status also differs, with the Xeon marked as End-of-life and the i3 marked as Active.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans several generations. The Intel Xeon W3570 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, using a 45 nm process node. It contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Intel Core i3-4360T uses the Haswell architecture, also codenamed Haswell, on a much more advanced 22 nm process node. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a smaller 177 mm² die, demonstrating a significant increase in transistor density. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The i3 has the same 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's generation is listed as "Xeon (Bloomfield)" and was released in 2009, while the i3's generation is "Core i3 (Haswell)" and was released in 2014. The i3 also has a newer PCIe Gen 3 interface compared to the Xeon's Gen 2, and it integrates the HD 4600 graphics core, a feature entirely absent from the Xeon.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the Intel Core i3-4360T is the superior processor in every benchmark measured. It wins all five Cinebench tests, has a higher average benchmark score (963 vs 955), and holds a higher percentile ranking (26th vs 25th). For users looking at raw compute performance, the i3-4360T is the better choice, offering identical or slightly better performance than the Xeon with dramatically lower power consumption (35 W vs 130 W). The i3's Active production status also means it is still available, while the Xeon is End-of-life. The i3-4360T should be selected by anyone building a desktop system who wants efficient, modern performance with integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 3 support.

The Intel Xeon W3570, despite its performance deficit, still has a role for specific use cases. Its support for ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3 makes it a candidate for legacy server or workstation builds where error correction is required and older hardware is already in place. The Xeon's 8 MB of L3 cache is double that of the i3, which could be beneficial in cache-heavy workloads, though this is not reflected in the Cinebench results. The Xeon also has the advantage of more physical cores (4 vs 2), which historically would suggest better multi-threading, but the benchmark data shows this advantage is nullified by the i3's newer architecture. For mission-critical server environments that require ECC memory and can tolerate higher power consumption, the Xeon W3570 remains a viable, if dated, option. For everything else, the Intel Core i3-4360T is the definitive winner based on the performance data.