CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5640 and Intel Core i3-4370 occupy two very different corners of the Intel lineup, yet benchmark results place them in an unexpectedly tight statistical tie. The Xeon E5640, a Westmere-EP server part from 2010, and the Core i3-4370, a Haswell desktop chip from 2014, both land at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 1137 for the Xeon and 1130 for the Core i3. Across five Cinebench tests, the Xeon ekes out every single win, but by margins so small (0.5% to 0.6%) that they are effectively within noise. The data suggests that architectural generation and core count cancel each other out almost perfectly, leaving the choice between these two to hinge on platform features, power efficiency, and the specific workloads each was designed to serve.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5640 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the data, but the victories are razor-thin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 332 against the Core i3's 330, a 0.6% delta. In R20 multicore, the margin is again 0.6% (1387 vs 1379). The pattern holds for single-core tests: R20 single-core shows 195 vs 194 (0.5% delta), and R23 single-core shows 466 vs 463 (0.6% delta). These are not real-world advantages; they are statistical ties. The Xeon's wins come from having 4 cores and 8 threads versus the Core i3's 2 cores and 4 threads, combined with a much larger 12 MB shared L3 cache versus 4 MB. However, the Core i3's higher base clock of 3.80 GHz (versus the Xeon's 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost) compensates for its fewer threads in these particular rendering workloads.

The Core i3-4370 wins where the benchmarks do not directly measure: platform efficiency and integrated functionality. It has a 54 W TDP compared to the Xeon's 80 W, meaning it draws less power under load. It also includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, whereas the Xeon has none. The Core i3 supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon is limited to Gen 2. For a desktop user who needs a simple, low-power build without a discrete GPU, the Core i3 is the clear choice. The Xeon, on the other hand, supports ECC memory, which the Core i3 does not, making it the safer option for data integrity in server or workstation environments.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-4370 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Is the Xeon E5640 faster in multi-core rendering?

A: Yes, but only marginally. It wins Cinebench R15 multicore with 332 points versus 330 for the Core i3 (0.6% delta), and R20 multicore with 1387 versus 1379 (0.6% delta). The Xeon also leads R23 multicore with 3303 versus 3284 (0.6% delta).

Q: Does the Core i3-4370 support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core i3-4370 does not support ECC memory. The Xeon E5640 does support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-4370 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5640 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5640 has an average benchmark score of 1137, while the Core i3-4370 sits at 1130. The Xeon's nearest rival is the AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE at 1138 (0.1% delta), and the Core i3's nearest rival is the Intel Pentium Gold G5500 at 1130 (0% delta).

Q: What are their respective release dates?

A: The Xeon E5640 was released on 2010-03-15. The Core i3-4370 was released on 2014-07-20.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The five head-to-head benchmarks all follow the same narrative: the Xeon E5640 wins, but by a hair. The largest single margin is 0.6%, which appears in four of the five tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon posts 332 versus 330. In R20 multicore, it's 1387 versus 1379. R23 multicore shows 3303 versus 3284. And R23 single-core shows 466 versus 463. The only test with a slightly different margin is R20 single-core, where the Xeon wins 195 to 194, a 0.5% delta.

These results are remarkable for one reason: the Xeon is a 2010 server part running on 32 nm Westmere, while the Core i3 is a 2014 desktop part on 22 nm Haswell. The Core i3's newer architecture and much higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 2.67 GHz) should give it a significant single-threaded advantage. Yet the data shows the Xeon's single-core scores are essentially identical, with the Xeon leading by a single point in R20 and three points in R23. This suggests that the Xeon's larger 12 MB L3 cache and server-grade design compensate for its older architecture and lower clocks. In multi-core tests, the Xeon's 8 threads versus the Core i3's 4 threads provide the extra edge, but again, the margin is tiny because the Core i3's per-core speed is so much higher.

The practical implication is that for Cinebench-style rendering, these two CPUs are interchangeable. A user would not notice a 0.6% difference in render time. The data implies that the Xeon's extra cores and cache are fully offset by the Core i3's clock speed and architectural improvements. This is a textbook case of generational gains versus raw resource count.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Xeon E5640 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4370 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are starkly different: the Xeon runs at 2.67 GHz with a 2.93 GHz boost, while the Core i3 has no boost clock but runs at a flat 3.80 GHz. TDP favors the Core i3 at 54 W versus the Xeon's 80 W.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, while the Core i3 uses Intel Socket 1150. Process nodes differ, with the Xeon on 32 nm and the Core i3 on 22 nm. Transistor counts and die sizes also diverge: the Xeon has 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die, while the Core i3 has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The Xeon's L3 cache is 12 MB shared, versus the Core i3's 4 MB shared. Memory support differs in channel count: the Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3, while the Core i3 uses dual-channel DDR3. ECC memory is supported only by the Xeon. PCIe generation is Gen 2 for the Xeon and Gen 3 for the Core i3. The Core i3 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none.

Market segments also differ: the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part, while the Core i3 is a Desktop part. The Xeon is marked as End-of-life, while the Core i3's production status is not specified. The Xeon has a part number (SLBVC), while the Core i3 does not list one. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for specific use cases. For a server or workstation build where ECC memory is required, the Xeon E5640 is the only option between these two, as the Core i3 does not support ECC. The Xeon's triple-channel memory bus and larger 12 MB L3 cache also align with server workloads that benefit from high memory bandwidth and large cache pools. Its 80 W TDP is higher, but that is a reasonable trade-off for a platform designed to run 24/7 with data integrity features.

For a desktop user who wants a simple, efficient build, the Core i3-4370 is the better pick. Its 54 W TDP means lower power consumption and less heat. The integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. PCIe Gen 3 support offers better bandwidth for modern expansion cards. The higher base clock of 3.80 GHz makes it snappier for lightly threaded tasks like web browsing or office applications, even if the benchmark scores do not reflect a decisive advantage.

If the decision rests purely on benchmark numbers, the Xeon E5640 wins all five tests, but the margins are so small (0.5% to 0.6%) that they are negligible in practice. The average benchmark scores (1137 vs 1130) and the identical 32nd percentile ranking reinforce that these are equivalent performers in Cinebench workloads. The choice comes down to platform requirements: ECC and server features point to the Xeon; power efficiency and integrated graphics point to the Core i3.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5640 is built on the Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, using a 32 nm process node. It is a 2010-era server part with 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are backed by 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a substantial 12 MB shared L3 cache. Memory support is triple-channel DDR3, and it operates on Intel Socket 1366. The Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation, and it is officially End-of-life.

The Core i3-4370 is built on the Haswell architecture, using a 22 nm process node. It is a 2014-era desktop part with 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 177 mm² die. Despite having only 2 cores and 4 threads, it features the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) cache sizes, but its L3 cache is just 4 MB shared. Memory support is dual-channel DDR3, and it uses Intel Socket 1150. The Core i3 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600) and supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 2. The Core i3 does not support ECC memory, whereas the Xeon does.

The architectural contrast is stark: the Xeon sacrifices clock speed and process efficiency for more cores, more cache, and server-grade memory features. The Core i3 uses a much newer process node (22 nm vs 32 nm) to achieve a higher base clock (3.80 GHz vs 2.67 GHz) at lower power (54 W vs 80 W), but it has half the cores and a third of the L3 cache. The fact that these two designs produce nearly identical Cinebench scores confirms how far Intel's architectural improvements came in just four years. The Haswell cores are so much more efficient per clock that they erase the Xeon's resource advantages in these specific workloads.