Intel Core i3-6300 vs Intel Xeon W5590 Comparison

FAQ

Q: How do the average benchmark scores of the Intel Xeon W5590 and Intel Core i3-6300 compare?

A: The Xeon W5590 records an average benchmark score of 986, while the Core i3-6300 scores 978. The difference is minimal, placing the Xeon 0.2% ahead of the i3 in overall average performance, though the i3 wins every head-to-head test.

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core rendering workloads?

A: The Core i3-6300 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3 scores 3380 against the Xeon's 2867, a 15.2% advantage. The i3 also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1419 vs 1204) and R15 multi-core (340 vs 288).

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance?

A: The Core i3-6300 dominates single-core tests. It scores 477 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 404 for the Xeon, a 15.3% lead. In R20 single-core, the i3 posts 200 against 169, and in R15 single-core the i3 records 52, a score the Xeon does not have a recorded result for.

Q: How do their transistor counts and manufacturing processes differ?

A: The Xeon W5590 uses a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Core i3-6300 uses a 14 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 150 mm² die. The i3 packs nearly double the transistors into a smaller physical area.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W5590 supports ECC memory with DDR3 triple-channel memory, while the Core i3-6300 does not support ECC and uses DDR4 dual-channel memory. The i3 does offer higher memory bandwidth at 34.1 GB/s compared to 32.0 GB/s for the Xeon.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i3-6300 includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 530. The Xeon W5590 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for its server/workstation market segment.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents an unusual split: the Core i3-6300 wins every recorded head-to-head test, yet the Xeon W5590 holds a marginal edge in overall average score. This apparent contradiction stems from the benchmark suite composition. The Xeon's average of 986 benefits from its consistent multi-threaded scores, while the i3's average of 978 is pulled down by its weak R15 single-core result of 52, which appears anomalous compared to its other single-core scores.

The Core i3-6300's wins are comprehensive across both single-core and multi-core workloads. Its largest margin comes in R20 single-core, where it leads by 15.5%. In multi-core tests, the i3 maintains a steady 15.2% to 15.3% advantage across R15, R20, and R23 versions. This consistency suggests the i3's architectural efficiency compensates for its lower core count.

The Xeon W5590's territory is the server and workstation space, where its ECC memory support, triple-channel DDR3 interface, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache serve reliability-focused workloads. Its 4 cores with 8 threads provide more parallel capacity than the i3's 2 cores with 4 threads, but the recorded benchmarks show the i3's newer architecture overcomes this deficit. The Xeon's 27th percentile ranking versus 26th for the i3 reflects its slightly higher average score, but the i3's generation advantage shows in every direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from radically different eras of Intel design. The Xeon W5590 uses the Nehalem architecture, specifically the Gainestown codename, built on a 45 nm process. The Core i3-6300 uses the Skylake architecture on a 14 nm process. This node difference of several generations explains much of the performance gap.

Transistor counts tell a stark story. The Xeon packs 731 million transistors across a 263 mm² die, while the i3 crams 1,400 million transistors into just 150 mm². The i3's denser, more modern process allows nearly double the transistor budget in a smaller footprint, enabling features the older Xeon cannot support.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both share 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. However, the Xeon offers 8 MB of shared L3 cache, double the i3's 4 MB shared L3. This larger cache pool serves the Xeon's multi-threaded server workloads, though the i3's smaller cache benefits from faster access times on the newer architecture.

The Xeon operates on Intel Socket 1366 with a 130 W TDP, while the i3 uses Intel Socket 1151 with a 51 W TDP. This 79 W difference reflects the Xeon's older, less efficient process and its server-oriented power delivery. The i3 also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 530), a feature entirely absent from the Xeon. PCIe support differs as well: the Xeon offers Gen 2, while the i3 provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts represent the most fundamental divergence. The Xeon W5590 provides 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-6300 provides 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite half the cores, the i3 wins all benchmarks, evidence of its architectural efficiency.

Clock speeds favor the i3. The Xeon runs at a 3.33 GHz base clock with a 3.60 GHz boost clock. The i3 runs at a higher 3.80 GHz base clock with no boost capability. This 0.47 GHz base clock advantage helps the i3 in single-threaded performance.

Memory support shows a generational split. The Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel interface and 32.0 GB/s bandwidth. The i3 uses DDR4 with a dual-channel interface and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth. The i3's newer memory standard delivers more bandwidth despite fewer channels.

ECC memory support marks the Xeon as the server part. The Xeon supports ECC, the i3 does not. The Xeon targets the server/workstation market segment, while the i3 targets desktop use. The Xeon launched in August 2009 with a $1600 MSRP and is end-of-life. The i3 launched in August 2015, remains active, and has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i3-6300 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests, with margins ranging from 15.2% to 15.5%. This uniformity suggests a consistent architectural advantage rather than workload-specific strengths.

The largest single margin belongs to Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3 scores 200 against the Xeon's 169, a 15.5% lead. This test emphasizes per-core efficiency, and the i3's newer Skylake architecture delivers superior instructions per clock compared to Nehalem.

Multi-core results follow a tight cluster. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3 scores 340 versus 288, a 15.3% lead. R20 multi-core shows 1419 versus 1204, a 15.2% margin. R23 multi-core records 3380 versus 2867, also 15.2%. The i3 maintains this margin despite having half the cores and threads, meaning each i3 core delivers roughly 2.3 times the multi-threaded throughput of each Xeon core.

Single-core performance in R23 shows a 15.3% gap, with the i3 scoring 477 versus 404. The i3 also records a Cinebench R15 single-core score of 52, a test for which the Xeon has no recorded result. This outlier score likely reflects a specific test condition or measurement artifact, but it still counts toward the i3's overall profile.

The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i7-875K and Xeon X3470, both scoring 0.2% to 0.3% higher average benchmarks. The i3's nearest rivals include the Core i5-5257U and Core i3-4130, all within 0.3%. These rival clusters confirm both processors sit in a tightly contested performance band around the 975-986 average score range. The Xeon's 27th percentile versus the i3's 26th percentile reflects this near-tie in overall standings, even as the i3 dominates every direct comparison.