Intel Core i3-9100TE vs Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads, the Intel Core i3-9100TE or the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 8 threads, while the Intel Core i3-9100TE has 4 threads. Both have 4 physical cores.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core rendering performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4732 versus 3900 for the Core i3-9100TE, a 17.6% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-9100TE and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in memory type between the two CPUs?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100TE supports DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 supports DDR3 memory in triple-channel configuration with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has a base clock of 2.80 GHz, compared to 2.20 GHz for the Intel Core i3-9100TE. Both have the same 3.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: Does the Intel Core i3-9100TE have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i3-9100TE includes UHD Graphics 630. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i3-9100TE is built on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, using a 14 nm process node from Intel. Its die size is 126 mm². The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, codenamed Ivy Bridge-EN, on a 22 nm process node with a die size of 257 mm² and 1,860 million transistors. The older, larger process node means the Xeon has a substantially bigger physical footprint.

Cache configurations differ notably. Both share the same per-core L1 cache at 64 KB per core and L2 cache at 256 KB per core, but the L3 cache is different: the Core i3-9100TE has 6 MB shared L3, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 10 MB shared L3. That extra 4 MB of L3 cache benefits the Xeon in workloads that reuse data frequently.

Memory architecture is another clear split. The Core i3-9100TE uses DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 uses DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus and 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth. The newer DDR4 platform has higher theoretical bandwidth, but the Xeon's triple-channel setup is a server-oriented design. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a Core i3 part and makes the 9100TE viable for reliability-focused builds.

The Core i3-9100TE includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a discrete GPU. PCIe lanes also differ: the Core i3-9100TE provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 provides Gen 3 with 24 lanes from the CPU, giving the Xeon more expansion headroom for workstation or server use. The sockets are incompatible, Intel Socket 1151 for the Core i3-9100TE and Intel Socket 1356 for the Xeon E5-1410 v2. The Core i3-9100TE has a 35 W TDP, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 has an 80 W TDP. The Core i3-9100TE was released on 2019-03-31 and is end-of-life; the Xeon E5-1410 v2 was released on 2014-01-08 and is also end-of-life.

The Verdict

Benchmark results are unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins every single head-to-head test in the database, across six Cinebench workloads. The margin is consistent, roughly 17.4% to 17.9% in the Xeon's favor. The Core i3-9100TE records zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

The Xeon achieves this despite being older and built on a larger process node. Its 8 threads versus 4 threads is the primary driver, but the higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.20 GHz also contributes, especially in single-core tests where thread count matters less. The Xeon wins single-core tests by similar margins, 17.5% to 17.9%, which points to a raw clock and IPC advantage in this comparison.

The Core i3-9100TE is not without merits, but those merits are not visible in pure CPU compute benchmarks. It has a much lower 35 W TDP versus 80 W, integrated graphics, DDR4 support, and a newer 14 nm process node. For a compact, low-power desktop system where the iGPU avoids the need for a separate graphics card, the 9100TE makes sense. For raw multi-threaded and single-threaded performance, the Xeon E5-1410 v2 is the clear pick. The data shows the Xeon is about 17.6% faster in multi-core Cinebench R23 and about 17.7% faster in single-core Cinebench R23. Anyone prioritizing compute throughput should choose the Xeon. Anyone prioritizing platform efficiency, integrated graphics, and modern memory should choose the Core i3-9100TE.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9100TE | Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 |

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

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 80 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 1356 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Ivy Bridge |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Ivy Bridge-EN |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 257 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,860 million |

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

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 32.0 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 24 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2019-03-31 | 2014-01-08 |

| Launch MSRP | $122 | Not listed |

The two CPUs share 4 cores, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, ECC memory support, a locked multiplier, and end-of-life production status. Everything else differs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 across all six compared Cinebench tests. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 67 against 55 for the Core i3-9100TE, a 17.9% difference. The largest margin is also in the R15 generation, multi-core this time, 476 versus 393, a 17.4% difference. The margins are remarkably consistent, which suggests a stable performance gap rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 1987 multi-core versus 1638 for the Core i3-9100TE, a 17.6% advantage. Single-core R20 sees the Xeon at 280 versus 231, a 17.5% advantage. Cinebench R23 shows the same pattern: multi-core 4732 versus 3900 for a 17.6% gap, and single-core 668 versus 550 for a 17.7% gap.

The Core i3-9100TE has additional Geekbench results in the database that the Xeon E5-1410 v2 does not have. The Core i3-9100TE scores 3214 multi-core and 1105 single-core in Geekbench. These numbers are not directly comparable to the Xeon because the Xeon lacks Geekbench entries in the database, so they are presented here only for completeness on the 9100TE side.

Looking at average benchmark scores, the Core i3-9100TE averages 1386 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 averages 1368. That is a negligible difference of 1.3%, and it reflects the different benchmark sets available for each CPU. The Xeon's benchmark list contains only Cinebench tests, while the Core i3-9100TE includes Geekbench results that pull its average upward. The head-to-head Cinebench data is the more reliable comparison, and there the Xeon is consistently ahead by roughly 17.5%.

Percentile rankings are close: the Core i3-9100TE sits at the 37th percentile of all CPUs, and the Xeon E5-1410 v2 sits at the 36th percentile. Both are mid-pack performers in the broader database, and the percentile difference is within noise. Nearest rivals for the Core i3-9100TE include the AMD Opteron 6274 with an average score of 1387 and a delta of -0.1%, the AMD Opteron 6238 at 1383 with +0.3%, the Intel Core i7-3615QE at 1381 with +0.4%, and the AMD Opteron 6366 HE at 1379 with +0.5%. For the Xeon E5-1410 v2, nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-1521 at 1367 with +0.1%, the AMD Opteron 6376 at 1370 with -0.1%, the Intel Core i7-3820QM at 1366 with +0.1%, and the Intel Core i7-2600 at 1370 with -0.2%. Both CPUs are clustered tightly with their rivals, meaning neither has a dramatic edge over its immediate competition class.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins everywhere that compute throughput matters. It is ahead in every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, across all three versions of the benchmark. The consistent 17.4% to 17.9% margin means it is faster for rendering workloads, video encoding, software compilation, and any task that scales with threads or clock speed. Its 8 threads give it a clear advantage in multi-threaded applications, while its 2.80 GHz base clock helps in lightly threaded workloads. The 10 MB L3 cache and 24 PCIe lanes also make it the better fit for a workstation or server environment where expansion cards and larger datasets are common.

The Intel Core i3-9100TE wins in platform efficiency and system integration. Its 35 W TDP is less than half of the Xeon's 80 W TDP, which translates to lower cooling requirements and potentially smaller power delivery components. The integrated UHD Graphics 630 means a system can be built without a discrete GPU, which is a significant advantage for basic desktop use, office productivity, or a low-power media server. Its DDR4 memory support and dual-channel 38.4 GB/s bandwidth offer a more modern memory platform, even though the Xeon's triple-channel DDR3 has a different design goal. The 14 nm process node and 126 mm² die size make it the more efficient silicon overall.

For a direct compute comparison, the Xeon E5-1410 v2 is the winner. For a quiet, low-power, integrated-graphics desktop, the Core i3-9100TE is the winner. The data does not support any other conclusion.