CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-9100 and Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 are both end-of-life desktop processors from Intel, but they target very different platforms. The i3-9100 is a mainstream Coffee Lake part on Socket 1151, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 is a Broadwell-EP workstation/server chip on Socket 2011-3. Despite their different pedigrees, their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, 1806 for the i3-9100 and 1802 for the Xeon, placing both at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs. The data shows a consistent, albeit modest, performance edge for the Xeon across every head-to-head test, which makes the platform choice the deciding factor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are uniform and relatively narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 627 against the i3-9100’s 566, a 9.7% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: the Xeon posts 88 versus 79, a 10.2% lead. This consistency carries into newer Cinebench versions, in R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2616 against 2361 (9.7% ahead), and in R20 single-core it scores 369 versus 333 (9.8% ahead). The R23 results tell the same story: multi-core 6230 versus 5622 (9.8% ahead) and single-core 879 versus 793 (9.8% ahead).

What’s notable here is that the Xeon’s advantage does not shrink or grow with the workload type. The deltaPct hovers between 9.7% and 10.2% across every test, indicating that the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent. The i3-9100 has a higher base clock (3.60 GHz vs 3.50 GHz) and a higher boost clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.80 GHz), yet the Xeon still wins single-core tests. This suggests the Xeon’s architecture extracts more instructions per clock, or its 8 threads provide enough scheduling headroom to benefit even lightly threaded loads. The Xeon’s 10 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i3’s 6 MB likely contributes to this edge, especially in tests that reuse working sets.

When placed against the broader competitive field, both CPUs are essentially tied. The i3-9100’s nearest rival list includes the Xeon E5-1620 v4 with a deltaPct of 0.2%, meaning the i3 is 0.2% faster on average. The Xeon’s list shows the i3-9100 at -0.2%, confirming the near-parity. However, the head-to-head data shows the Xeon winning every specific test, which highlights how average scores can mask consistent per-test differences. The i3-9100’s only benchmark victories come from Geekbench, where it scores 3403 multi-core and 1290 single-core, but the Xeon has no Geekbench scores in the data pack, so those cannot be compared directly.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100 edges out the Xeon E5-1620 v4 with an average score of 1806 versus 1802, a difference of 0.2% in favor of the i3. Both sit at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Does the Xeon’s extra threads help in multi-core workloads?

A: Yes. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has 8 threads versus the i3-9100’s 4, and it leads in every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 6230 against 5622, a 9.8% advantage. The thread count difference is the most likely explanation for the consistent multi-core edge.

Q: Which CPU has better single-core performance?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. In R23 single-core, it scores 879 versus the i3-9100’s 793, a 9.8% lead. This is surprising given the i3’s higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.80 GHz.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, exactly double the i3-9100’s dual-channel 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon also has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the i3 has 16.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-9100 and the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 support ECC memory. This makes both viable for entry-level workstations where data integrity is a priority.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i3-9100 has integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for any display output.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node, but they come from different architecture families. The i3-9100 uses Coffee Lake, a refresh of the mainstream architecture, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 uses Broadwell-EP, the enterprise/server variant of Broadwell. The die sizes reflect this divergence: the Xeon’s die measures 246 mm² and contains 3,400 million transistors, whereas the i3-9100’s die is 126 mm² with no transistor count listed in the data. The larger Xeon die is not just for the extra cache, it also supports a broader memory interface and more PCIe lanes.

Cache configurations differ significantly. Both CPUs have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 10 MB on the Xeon versus 6 MB on the i3-9100. This 67% larger L3 cache is a major architectural differentiator. The Xeon also supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i3 is limited to dual-channel at 38.4 GB/s. PCIe lane counts diverge as well: the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) versus 16 on the i3. The i3-9100 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

The Xeon’s higher TDP of 140 watts versus the i3’s 65 watts reflects its larger die, more cache, and memory controller overhead. Both CPUs have locked multipliers, so neither offers overclocking. The i3 is a 4-core/4-thread part, while the Xeon is a 4-core/8-thread part, giving the Xeon Hyper-Threading support. The sockets are incompatible: the i3 uses Intel Socket 1151, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The i3 was released in 2018, while the Xeon came earlier in 2016. Both are end-of-life, but the i3’s launch MSRP was $122, whereas the Xeon’s was $294.

The Verdict

The data points to the Xeon E5-1620 v4 as the better performer in every head-to-head benchmark, with a consistent 9.7% to 10.2% advantage across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. The Xeon’s 8 threads and larger 10 MB L3 cache give it a structural edge that clock speed alone cannot overcome. The i3-9100 fights back with a higher boost clock (4.20 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) and integrated graphics, but the benchmark results show that these advantages do not translate into wins in any head-to-head test.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The i3-9100’s average is 1806 versus the Xeon’s 1802, a 0.2% difference that puts the i3 ahead in the aggregate. This is because the i3 has Geekbench scores (3403 multi-core, 1290 single-core) that pull its average up, while the Xeon lacks Geekbench data. For a buyer looking at raw average score, the i3-9100 is marginally ahead; for a buyer looking at consistent per-test performance, the Xeon is the clear winner. The decision ultimately hinges on platform priorities: the i3 offers a cheaper entry point with integrated graphics and a mainstream socket, while the Xeon demands a more expensive Socket 2011-3 platform but delivers better multi-threaded performance, quad-channel memory, and 40 PCIe lanes.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9100 | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |

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

| Cores / Threads | 4 / 4 | 4 / 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.20 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 140 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Broadwell-EP |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 246 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 3,400 million |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | None |

| Launch MSRP | $122 | $294 |

| Release Date | 2018-08-31 | 2016-06-19 |

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every benchmark category that has direct comparison data. Its strengths lie in multi-threaded workloads where the 8 threads provide a 9.7% to 9.8% advantage over the i3-9100 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. It also wins single-core tests by a similar margin, which is unexpected given the i3’s higher clocks. The Xeon’s quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe lanes make it the better fit for memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications or systems that need many expansion cards. Its larger 10 MB L3 cache and 3,400 million transistors indicate a more robust architecture for sustained professional workloads.

The i3-9100 has no head-to-head wins in the data, but it holds advantages in areas that matter for specific use cases. Its integrated UHD Graphics 630 means it can run a display without a discrete GPU, making it suitable for basic office builds or low-power media systems. Its 65-watt TDP is less than half the Xeon’s 140 watts, which simplifies cooling and reduces power costs. The i3’s higher boost clock of 4.20 GHz gives it a theoretical edge in short, lightly threaded bursts, even if the benchmark data does not show it winning any single-core tests. Its lower launch MSRP of $122 versus $294 makes it the more economical choice for a mainstream Socket 1151 build. The i3 also has Geekbench scores (3403 multi-core, 1290 single-core) that contribute to its slightly higher average benchmark score, though the Xeon lacks comparable Geekbench data. For a builder prioritizing raw performance per benchmark test, the Xeon is the pick; for a builder prioritizing platform cost, power efficiency, and integrated graphics, the i3-9100 is the practical choice.