Intel Core i3-6300 vs Intel Xeon W3565 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a one-sided contest. The Intel Core i3-6300 wins all five recorded Cinebench comparisons, with the Xeon W3565 trailing by margins between 14.6% and 15% in every test. The closest result is in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-6300 scores 1419 against the Xeon's 1212, a 14.6% advantage. The same 14.6% gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with the i3-6300 posting 3380 versus 2888.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-6300 scores 200, while the Xeon W3565 manages 170, a 15% deficit. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the i3-6300 at 477 against the Xeon's 407, a 14.7% gap. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result is the smallest relative margin at 14.7%, with the i3-6300 scoring 340 and the Xeon scoring 290.

It is importantly the Xeon W3565 has no single-core result in Cinebench R15 within the recorded data, while the i3-6300 has a 52 there, but the multi-core R15 comparison still favors the newer chip. The pattern is consistent: the i3-6300 leads by roughly 15% across every workload the database recorded, regardless of whether the test stresses one core or all cores. The Xeon's extra cores and threads do not translate into a win anywhere in the head-to-head set.

Average benchmark scores place the two processors nearly level overall, but that is a function of the broader benchmark pool. The Xeon W3565 has an average score of 993, while the i3-6300 sits at 978. Yet in the direct Cinebench comparisons, the i3-6300 is decisively ahead. The Xeon's average is propped up by its 27th percentile ranking among all CPUs, versus the i3-6300's 26th percentile, but the direct matchups tell a different story.

Where Each One Wins

The i3-6300 wins every recorded head-to-head test, so the use-case split is straightforward. For multi-threaded rendering workloads, the i3-6300 takes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core. The margins are nearly identical, between 14.6% and 14.7%, which indicates a consistent throughput advantage. For single-threaded tasks, the i3-6300 also leads in both R20 and R23 single-core tests, with margins of 15% and 14.7% respectively.

The Xeon W3565 has no winning category in the head-to-head data. Its only comparative strengths come from the broader database context. It matches the Intel Core i7-965, AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, and Intel Core i7-960 with a 0% delta in average score, meaning those three CPUs are effectively tied with it. It also sits 0.1% behind the Intel Core i3-8130U in average score. The i3-6300, by contrast, sits 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-5257U and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i3-4150T, Intel Core i3-4130, and AMD Athlon X4 840 in average score.

For a user focused on the benchmark database, the i3-6300 is the pick for both single-threaded responsiveness and multi-core rendering. The Xeon W3565 offers no benchmark win to point to. The data shows a clean sweep for the Skylake chip.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from very different eras of Intel design. The Xeon W3565 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, built on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. It is a server and workstation part on Intel Socket 1366. The Core i3-6300 uses the Skylake architecture, built on a 14 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 150 mm² die, and it targets desktops on Intel Socket 1151.

Core counts differ substantially. The Xeon W3565 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-6300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 3.20 GHz with a boost clock of 3.47 GHz, while the i3-6300 has a higher base clock of 3.80 GHz and no boost clock listed. Power draw is another major divider: the Xeon is rated at 130 W TDP, while the i3-6300 is rated at 51 W TDP.

Cache layouts are similar in structure but different in size. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3-6300 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support also diverges. The Xeon supports DDR3 with a triple-channel memory bus and ECC memory. The i3-6300 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel memory bus, a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, and no ECC support.

PCIe connectivity differs by generation. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the i3-6300 uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The i3-6300 also includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 530, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. The Xeon's multiplier is locked, as is the i3-6300's, so neither offers unlocked overclocking. Production status also separates them: the Xeon W3565 is end-of-life, while the i3-6300 is listed as active. Release dates place the Xeon in 2009 and the i3-6300 in 2015.

The architectural gap explains the benchmark results. The i3-6300's newer 14 nm process, higher base clock, and newer memory interface overcome the Xeon's core and thread advantage. The Xeon's larger L3 cache and triple-channel memory bus do not compensate for the generational leap in instructions per clock.

The Verdict

The database is unambiguous. The Intel Core i3-6300 wins every recorded Cinebench comparison, with margins between 14.6% and 15%. For users choosing between these two processors based on the recorded measurements, the i3-6300 is the faster part in both single-core and multi-core workloads.

The Xeon W3565 does retain some relevance in the broader benchmark pool. Its average score of 993 ties it with the Intel Core i7-965, AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, and Intel Core i7-960. It is also within 0.1% of the Intel Core i3-8130U. But in direct comparisons with the i3-6300, it loses every test. The i3-6300's average score of 978 places it 0.2% ahead of the Intel Core i5-5257U and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i3-4150T, Intel Core i3-4130, and AMD Athlon X4 840.

The Xeon W3565 offers server and workstation features like ECC memory support and a triple-channel memory bus, along with more cores and threads. The i3-6300 offers a lower TDP, integrated graphics, DDR4 support, and PCIe Gen 3. For benchmark performance as recorded in the database, the i3-6300 is the clear choice. The Xeon W3565's advantages lie in platform features, not in the measured Cinebench scores.

A user prioritizing ECC memory, triple-channel bandwidth, or the workstation platform would look to the Xeon W3565. A user prioritizing raw Cinebench performance would select the i3-6300. The data supports the i3-6300 in every head-to-head test, and the percentile rankings are close enough that the average score difference is minor. The verdict from the recorded measurements is straightforward: the i3-6300 is the faster processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Core i3-6300 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 340 in Cinebench R15, 1419 in R20, and 3380 in R23, compared to the Xeon W3565's 290, 1212, and 2888 respectively.

Q: How much faster is the i3-6300 in single-core performance?

A: The i3-6300 leads by 15% in Cinebench R20 single-core (200 versus 170) and by 14.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (477 versus 407).

Q: Does the Xeon W3565 have more cores and threads?

A: Yes, the Xeon W3565 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-6300 has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these two processors?

A: The Xeon W3565 is rated at 130 W TDP, while the i3-6300 is rated at 51 W TDP.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon W3565 supports ECC memory with a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus. The i3-6300 does not support ECC and uses a dual-channel DDR4 memory bus.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each CPU?

A: The Xeon W3565 has an average benchmark score of 993, while the i3-6300 has an average score of 978.