Intel Core i3-4370T vs Intel Xeon W3565 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Xeon W3565 and the Intel Core i3-4370T is unusually lopsided. Across all five recorded Cinebench comparisons, the Xeon W3565 takes every single win. The database records winsA at 5 and winsB at 0, meaning there is no test in the head-to-head set where the Core i3-4370T comes out ahead.

That said, the margin of victory is remarkably narrow in every discipline. The Xeon W3565 wins the multicore tests by 1% in Cinebench R15 and 1.1% in both Cinebench R20 and R23 multicore. The single-core results follow the same pattern: 0.6% in R20 single-core and 1% in R23 single-core. So while the Xeon W3565 is the consistent winner, the Core i3-4370T is never far behind.

From a use-case perspective, the Xeon W3565 is the pick for anyone prioritizing raw threaded throughput. It has double the core count and double the thread count of the i3-4370T, and it uses that structural advantage to edge out slightly higher scores in every multicore benchmark. The Core i3-4370T, by contrast, makes its case through efficiency and platform features rather than performance supremacy: it draws 35W versus 130W, integrates Intel HD 4600 graphics, and runs on a modern 22nm process. For workloads that lean on the integrated GPU or require minimal power draw, the i3-4370T offers a different kind of win, even if no benchmark in this set reflects it.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W3565 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i3-4370T has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How much does the Xeon W3565 lead in the Cinebench R23 multicore test?

A: The Xeon W3565 scores 2888, while the Core i3-4370T scores 2856. That is a delta of 1.1% in favor of the Xeon.

Q: Does the Core i3-4370T win any benchmark in the head-to-head set?

A: No. The database shows 5 wins for the Xeon W3565 and 0 wins for the Core i3-4370T across all five Cinebench comparisons.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Xeon W3565 has an average benchmark score of 993, and the Core i3-4370T has an average of 983. The Xeon sits 10 points higher.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W3565 supports ECC memory, while the Core i3-4370T does not.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Core i3-4370T?

A: The launch MSRP is $138. The Xeon W3565 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive gap appears in the Cinebench R20 multicore test. The Xeon W3565 records 1212 against 1199 for the Core i3-4370T, a 1.1% advantage. That same 1.1% delta repeats in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Xeon scores 2888 and the i3-4370T scores 2856. These are the two largest percentage leads in the entire comparison, and both occur in heavily threaded workloads.

The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows the Xeon ahead by 1% with scores of 290 and 287. The single-core results are even tighter. In Cinebench R20 single-core gives the Xeon a 170 to 169 win at 0.6%, the smallest margin recorded. Cinebench R23 single-core closes the set with the Xeon at 407 against 403 at 1%.

Looking at the percentile ranks, the Xeon W3565 lands in the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and the Core i3-4370T sits in the 26th percentile. The nearest rivals for the Xeon W3565 include the Intel Core i7-965, AMD Phenom 965, AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, and Intel Core i7-960, all at an average score of 993 with 0% delta. The Core i3-4370T draws its closest comparisons from the Intel Xeon X3470 at 983, the Intel Core i3-4130T at 984, the Intel Core i7-875K at 984, and the Intel Xeon W5590 at 986.

The overall pattern is consistent: the Xeon W3565 wins every test, but never by more than 1.1%. The Core i3-4370T is a competitive alternative on paper, especially considering it does so with a fraction of the power envelope, but the recorded data gives the performance crown to the Xeon in every single category.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The Xeon W3565 uses 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4370T uses 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are close: the Xeon runs at 3.20 GHz and boosts to 3.47 GHz, while the i3-4370T runs at 3.30 GHz with no boost clock listed.

Thermal design power is where the gap becomes dramatic. The Xeon W3565 is rated at 130W, while the Core i3-4370T is rated at 35W. That is a 95W difference, making the i3-4370T far more suitable for low-power or compact systems.

Sockets differ completely. The Xeon W3565 uses Intel Socket 1366, and the Core i3-4370T uses Intel Socket 1150. Memory support also differs: both support DDR3, but the Xeon uses triple-channel memory while the i3-4370T uses dual-channel. The i3-4370T lists a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, while the Xeon W3565 has no bandwidth figure recorded.

PCIe generations differ as well. The Xeon W3565 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i3-4370T supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU. The i3-4370T also includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon W3565 has no integrated graphics listed.

ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon W3565. The Core i3-4370T does not support ECC. Market segments align with these differences: the Xeon W3565 is a Server/Workstation part, and the Core i3-4370T is a Desktop part.

Release dates are far apart. The Xeon W3565 was released in 2009, and the Core i3-4370T was released in 2015. Both are now end-of-life products. The Core i3-4370T has a launch MSRP of $138; the Xeon W3565 has no launch MSRP recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is a generational one. The Xeon W3565 is built on the Nehalem architecture under the codename Bloomfield, produced on a 45nm process. The Core i3-4370T uses the Haswell architecture under the same codename, produced on a 22nm process. This process shrink gives the i3-4370T a density advantage despite carrying more transistors: the i3-4370T packs 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while the Xeon W3565 has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die.

Cache configurations also differ. Both CPUs share the same L1 and L2 per-core sizes: 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache, however, is larger on the Xeon W3565, which offers 8 MB shared, while the Core i3-4370T offers 4 MB shared.

The transistor count difference is notable. The Haswell-based i3-4370T uses roughly double the transistor count of the Nehalem-based Xeon W3565, yet it does so on a smaller die. This reflects the architectural evolution between 2009 and 2015, with the newer process node enabling higher transistor density and lower power consumption.

The Xeon W3565 maintains server and workstation features such as ECC memory support and triple-channel memory. The Core i3-4370T, as a desktop part, includes integrated graphics and dual-channel memory. The PCIe interface also reflects the generational leap: the Xeon W3565 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i3-4370T supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner in the Intel Xeon W3565. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with its largest margins reaching 1.1% in Cinebench R20 and R23 multicore. Its 8 threads, 8 MB of L3 cache, and ECC memory support make it the more capable processor for threaded server and workstation workloads.

The Core i3-4370T, while losing every benchmark in this set, still has a distinct profile. Its 35W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in basic desktop systems. Its 22nm process node and PCIe Gen 3 support bring modern platform features that the older Xeon cannot match.

For a user building a low-power desktop system with integrated graphics and modern I/O, the Core i3-4370T is the sensible choice despite its lower benchmark scores. For a user who needs ECC memory support, more threads, and maximum multicore performance from the recorded data, the Xeon W3565 is the winner. The benchmark results give the Xeon the crown in every measured test, but the i3-4370T remains competitive on features, efficiency, and platform modernity.