Intel Core i3-4370T vs Intel Xeon W5590 Comparison

The Intel Xeon W5590 and the Intel Core i3-4370T represent two very different philosophies in processor design, separated by nearly six years of silicon evolution. The Xeon W5590 is a high-end server/workstation part from 2009, built on a 45nm process with a 130W TDP, while the Core i3-4370T is a low-power desktop chip from 2015, on a 22nm process with a 35W TDP. Despite these massive generational and architectural gaps, the benchmark data shows they are astonishingly close in raw compute performance, making the comparison less about speed and more about platform context and specific workload characteristics.

Where Each One Wins

According to the head-to-head data, the Intel Xeon W5590 wins all five benchmark comparisons, but the margins are remarkably thin. In the Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests, the Xeon leads by 0.3% and 0.4%, respectively. The single-core R20 test is a dead heat at 169 points for both, while the R23 multi-core and single-core tests show the Xeon ahead by 0.4% and 0.2%. This means the Xeon W5590 has a consistent, if minimal, performance advantage across the board.

The Core i3-4370T's wins are not in performance but in efficiency and platform features. Its 35W TDP is drastically lower than the Xeon's 130W TDP, making it suitable for compact, low-power systems. It also brings integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), which the Xeon lacks entirely, and supports PCIe Gen 3, whereas the Xeon is limited to Gen 2. The i3 also has a more modern 22nm process node and a higher transistor count (1,400 million vs 731 million) in a smaller die size (177 mm² vs 263 mm²). For users prioritizing power consumption, modern connectivity, or needing a built-in GPU, the i3 is the clear choice despite losing every performance benchmark.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon W5590 than the Core i3-4370T in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon wins all multi-core tests, but the margins are tiny. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 1204 versus 1199 for the i3, a delta of 0.4%. In R23 multi-core, the scores are 2867 and 2856, also a 0.4% difference.

Q: Is the Core i3-4370T better for single-core performance?

A: No, the data does not support that. The Xeon W5590 wins the single-core R23 test with 404 points versus 403 points for the i3, a 0.2% margin. The single-core R20 test is a tie at 169 points.

Q: What is the biggest advantage of the Core i3-4370T over the Xeon?

A: Its power efficiency and modern platform features. The i3 has a 35W TDP compared to the Xeon's 130W TDP. It also includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics and supports PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics and only PCIe Gen 2.

Q: How do these processors compare to other CPUs in the database?

A: The Xeon W5590 has an average benchmark score of 986, placing it in the 27th percentile of all CPUs. The i3-4370T has an average score of 983, placing it in the 26th percentile. They are extremely close in overall standing.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No, both are listed as end-of-life. The Xeon was released on August 8, 2009, and the i3 was released on March 29, 2015.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No, this is a key difference. The Xeon W5590 supports ECC memory with a triple-channel memory bus, while the Core i3-4370T does not support ECC and uses a dual-channel memory bus.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results paint a picture of near-identical performance, which is surprising given the architectural differences. The Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads are pitted against the i3's 2 cores and 4 threads. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Xeon scores 288, edging out the i3's 287 by 0.3%. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 1204 against the i3's 1199, a 0.4% lead. The Cinebench R20 single-core test is a perfect tie at 169 points, indicating that per-clock performance is essentially identical in this workload.

The most comprehensive test, Cinebench R23, shows the same story. In multi-core, the Xeon scores 2867 versus 2856 for the i3, a 0.4% advantage. In single-core, the Xeon scores 404 versus 403, a 0.2% margin. These deltas are so small that they are likely within run-to-run variance, but the Xeon does win all five tests. The average benchmark scores align with this: the Xeon averages 986, while the i3 averages 983, a difference of only 0.3%. The nearest rival data for both chips includes each other, with the Xeon being 0.3% ahead of the i3 in the i3's rival list, and the i3 being 0.3% behind in the Xeon's list.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals substantial differences that do not translate into large performance gaps. The Xeon W5590 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-4370T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 3.33 GHz with a 3.60 GHz boost, while the i3 has a fixed base clock of 3.30 GHz with no boost. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 1366, while the i3 uses Socket 1150. Memory support differs: the Xeon uses a triple-channel DDR3 bus with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3 uses dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Cache sizes also differ, with the Xeon having 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 4 MB on the i3. The Xeon supports ECC memory and has PCIe Gen 2, while the i3 lacks ECC and has PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The i3 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, while the Xeon has none. The TDP is a major differentiator: 130W for the Xeon versus 35W for the i3. Finally, the launch MSRP differs significantly: the Xeon was $1600, while the i3 was $138.

Architecture Differences

The architectural chasm between these two chips explains their existence in different market segments. The Xeon W5590 is built on the Nehalem architecture with the codename "Gainestown," using a 45nm process node. It contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The i3-4370T is based on the Haswell architecture, using a 22nm process node. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a smaller 177 mm² die. This explains the i3's superior transistor density and efficiency.

The Xeon's larger L3 cache (8 MB) and triple-channel memory controller are hallmarks of a server/workstation design aimed at memory-intensive workloads. The i3's Haswell design focuses on integrated graphics and power efficiency, with a dual-channel memory controller and no ECC support. The production status for both is end-of-life, but they represent different eras: the Xeon is from 2009, while the i3 is from 2015. The Xeon is marked as a Server/Workstation part, while the i3 is a Desktop part, which is reflected in their sockets, memory channels, and feature sets. Neither has an unlocked multiplier, and both are Intel products.

The Verdict

The data suggests that for pure CPU compute performance, the Intel Xeon W5590 is the marginally faster part, winning all five benchmark comparisons. Its 4-core/8-thread configuration and higher cache and memory bandwidth give it a slight edge over the i3-4370T in both multi-core and single-core tests. Users who need ECC memory support, a triple-channel memory bus, and a server-grade platform should look at the Xeon W5590.

However, the Core i3-4370T is the more sensible choice for a desktop build. Its 35W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's 130W TDP, making it far easier to cool and more energy-efficient. It includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU. Its support for PCIe Gen 3 provides modern connectivity, and its significantly lower launch MSRP makes it a more accessible option for general-purpose computing. Given that the performance difference is under 0.5% in all tests, the i3-4370T effectively matches the Xeon's computing power while offering a vastly more practical and modern platform. The Xeon's only real advantages are its ECC memory support and marginally higher benchmark scores, which are unlikely to be noticeable in real-world use.