CPU Comparison

# Intel Core i3-7300 vs Intel Xeon E5630

The Intel Core i3-7300 is the clear winner across every benchmark in this comparison, taking all five head-to-head tests with deltas between 19.4% and 19.8%. Despite having only 2 cores and 4 threads versus the Xeon E5630's 4 cores and 8 threads, the i3-7300's much higher base clock and newer architecture deliver decisive performance advantages. The Xeon E5630, a Westmere-era server chip from 2010, trails by roughly one-fifth in every workload tested, making the i3-7300 the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute performance.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-7300 wins in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 3856 versus 3226 for the Xeon E5630, a 19.5% advantage. The i3-7300 also leads in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1619 vs 1354, +19.6%) and Cinebench R15 multi-core (388 vs 324, +19.8%).

Q: How does single-core performance compare?

A: The i3-7300 dominates single-core tests. It scores 544 in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 455 for the Xeon E5630 (+19.6%), and 228 versus 191 in Cinebench R20 single-core (+19.4%). The Xeon E5630 has no single-core R15 result, but the pattern is consistent across all available tests.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon E5630 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i3-7300 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite having half the cores and threads, the i3-7300 still outperforms the Xeon in every benchmark.

Q: What are the architectural differences?

A: The i3-7300 uses Kaby Lake on a 14 nm process with a 4.00 GHz base clock, while the Xeon E5630 uses Westmere-EP on a 32 nm process with a 2.53 GHz base clock and 2.80 GHz boost. The i3-7300 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache; the Xeon has 12 MB shared.

Q: Which CPU supports newer memory and PCIe standards?

A: The i3-7300 supports DDR4 memory with dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, plus PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. The Xeon E5630 uses DDR3 with triple-channel bus and PCIe Gen 2. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the i3-7300 does not.

Q: What is the production status of each CPU?

A: The i3-7300 is marked as Active production, released on 2017-01-02. The Xeon E5630 is End-of-life, released on 2010-03-15. The i3-7300 also includes integrated Intel HD 630 graphics; the Xeon has none.

Architecture Differences

The i3-7300 is built on Kaby Lake architecture using a 14 nm process, while the Xeon E5630 uses Westmere-EP on a 32 nm process. This process advantage is significant: the i3-7300 packs modern transistor technology into a smaller footprint, contributing to its higher efficiency and performance.

Clock speeds tell a stark story. The i3-7300 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz with no boost clock listed, running at a fixed high frequency. The Xeon E5630 has a base clock of 2.53 GHz and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz. This means the i3-7300 operates at roughly 58% higher base frequency than the Xeon's base, and 43% higher than the Xeon's boost.

Cache configurations differ substantially. Both CPUs have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the i3-7300 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E5630 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache reflects its server pedigree, designed to handle larger working sets across more cores.

Memory support is another major divergence. The i3-7300 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E5630 supports DDR3 with a triple-channel bus, though no bandwidth figure is provided. The Xeon supports ECC memory, making it suitable for error-sensitive server workloads, while the i3-7300 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ as well: the i3-7300 supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon E5630 supports PCIe Gen 2. The i3-7300 also includes integrated Intel HD 630 graphics, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

The Xeon E5630 has 1,170 million transistors and a die size of 239 mm², while these figures are not listed for the i3-7300. The Xeon's larger die and older process node contribute to its 80 W TDP, compared to the i3-7300's 51 W TDP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i3-7300 wins every benchmark in this comparison. Across five head-to-head tests, the i3-7300 leads by 19.4% to 19.8%, a consistent, substantial margin. The Xeon E5630's advantage in core count (4 vs 2) and thread count (8 vs 4) does not translate into any performance victory.

For desktop users, the i3-7300 is the only rational choice. It offers higher performance in every tested workload, a newer architecture, lower TDP (51 W vs 80 W), DDR4 memory support, and integrated graphics. The Xeon E5630's triple-channel DDR3 and ECC support are server-oriented features that do not compensate for its 20% performance deficit.

The Xeon E5630 makes sense only in legacy server or workstation systems that require ECC memory and already have Socket 1366 infrastructure. Its 12 MB L3 cache and triple-channel memory bus suggest it was designed for multi-threaded server loads, but benchmark results show it cannot overcome the i3-7300's clock speed and architectural advantages.

The i3-7300's percentile ranking of 31 versus the Xeon's 31 shows they sit at the same overall performance level among all CPUs, yet the head-to-head data reveals the i3-7300 is consistently faster. The Xeon's average benchmark score is 1110, while the i3-7300's is 1115, a small edge for the i3-7300 that becomes a 19-20% margin in direct comparisons.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-7300 | Intel Xeon E5630 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 2.53 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 2.80 GHz |

| TDP | 51 W | 80 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Westmere-EP |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,170 million |

| Die Size | Not listed | 239 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2017-01-02 | 2010-03-15 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i3-7300 wins all five head-to-head tests, with every victory falling between 19.4% and 19.8%. This consistency suggests the performance gap is fundamental, not workload-specific.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-7300 scores 388 versus 324 for the Xeon E5630, a 19.8% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. The i3-7300's 2 cores outperform the Xeon's 4 cores in this test, demonstrating the power of higher clock speeds and newer architecture.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a similar story: 1619 for the i3-7300 versus 1354 for the Xeon, a 19.6% gap. The R20 multi-core test is more demanding and scales with modern CPU capabilities, yet the i3-7300 maintains its lead.

Single-core results are equally decisive. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-7300 scores 228 versus 191 for the Xeon, a 19.4% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 544 versus 455, a 19.6% gap. The Xeon's boost clock of 2.80 GHz cannot close the gap against the i3-7300's 4.00 GHz base clock.

Cinebench R23 multi-core rounds out the comparison: 3856 for the i3-7300 versus 3226 for the Xeon, a 19.5% advantage. The i3-7300's average benchmark score of 1115 edges out the Xeon's 1110, but the head-to-head results show a much larger margin in direct competition.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-7300 wins in every category measured. It excels in single-core performance, where its 4.00 GHz clock delivers 19.4-19.6% advantages over the Xeon E5630. For tasks like everyday desktop use, office productivity, and lightly-threaded applications that rely on single-core speed, the i3-7300 is clearly superior.

The i3-7300 also wins in multi-core tests despite having half the cores and threads. Its 14 nm Kaby Lake architecture and high clock speed overcome the Xeon's core count advantage. For users running Cinebench workloads, video encoding, or other moderately-threaded tasks, the i3-7300 delivers 19.5-19.8% better performance.

The Xeon E5630's only theoretical advantages lie outside benchmark performance. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-correcting workloads in server environments. Its triple-channel memory bus and larger 12 MB L3 cache could benefit certain memory-intensive server applications, though no benchmark data confirms this. Its Socket 1366 compatibility makes it relevant only for upgrading existing legacy systems.

The Xeon E5630's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the i3-7300 targets Desktop. The Xeon's 80 W TDP versus the i3-7300's 51 W TDP means the i3-7300 runs cooler and consumes less power. The i3-7300's integrated Intel HD 630 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems, while the Xeon requires one.

In summary, the i3-7300 wins on every performance metric, offers newer technology, lower power consumption, and integrated graphics. The Xeon E5630 retains niche relevance only for legacy Socket 1366 servers requiring ECC memory. For any new build or general-purpose computing, the data clearly favors the Intel Core i3-7300.