CPU Comparison
Intel Core i3-9320
Xeon E5-1620 v4
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i3-9320 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4
# The Verdict
The Intel Core i3-9320 and the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 are nearly identical in raw benchmark performance, but the data reveals a clear split in who should pick which. The i3-9320 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, though by margins of 0.0% to 0.5%, effectively a statistical tie in single-core and a hair ahead in multi-core. If you need a lower-power desktop CPU with integrated graphics for a standard Socket 1151 board, the i3-9320 is the data-backed choice. If you need a server-class platform with quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe lanes, the Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the only option that fits, despite its 140W TDP and higher launch MSRP. Neither chip is a performance winner; the decision hinges entirely on platform requirements.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are built on Intel's 14nm process node and feature 4 physical cores, but the similarity ends there. The i3-9320 comes from the Coffee Lake architecture (specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation), while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 uses the Broadwell-EP architecture under the Broadwell codename. The i3-9320 implements 4 threads total (one per core), whereas the Xeon E5-1620 v4 implements 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, double the thread count from the same core count.
The cache hierarchy diverges significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i3-9320 sports 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 offers 10 MB of shared L3, a 2 MB advantage. The Xeon's die is substantially larger at 246 mm² versus 126 mm² for the i3, and it packs 3,400 million transistors, whereas the i3's transistor count is not specified.
Memory architecture differs dramatically. The i3-9320 uses dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 uses quad-channel DDR4 with double the bandwidth at 76.8 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a Core i3 part. PCIe capability also favors the Xeon: it provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the i3 offers Gen 3 with just 16 lanes (CPU only). The i3 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. Clock speeds favor the i3, with a 3.70 GHz base and 4.40 GHz boost versus the Xeon's 3.50 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark results are remarkably close across all six Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-9320 scores 630 against the Xeon's 627, a 0.5% lead. In R15 single-core, both chips produce an identical score of 88, with the i3-9320 declared the winner by 0.0% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i3-9320 scores 2626 versus 2616 for the Xeon, a 0.4% edge. R20 single-core shows 370 versus 369, a 0.3% advantage for the i3. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i3-9320 hits 6254 against the Xeon's 6230, again a 0.4% margin. Finally, R23 single-core records 882 versus 879, a 0.3% difference.
The pattern is consistent: the i3-9320 wins every test, but the largest delta is just 0.5%. For context, the average benchmark scores place these chips within a hair of each other, the i3-9320 averages 1808, while the Xeon averages 1802, a 0.4% gap. Both sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are squarely mid-pack performers. The nearest rivals reinforce this: the i3-9320 is 0.1% behind the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (1810) and 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i3-9100 (1806), while the Xeon is 0.2% behind the i3-9100 and 0.7% ahead of the AMD Opteron 6281 (1789). Neither chip is a standout; they are interchangeable in raw compute for Cinebench workloads.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU has higher multi-threaded performance?
A: The Intel Core i3-9320 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests, but by margins of only 0.4% to 0.5%. In R23 multi-core, the i3 scores 6254 versus 6230 for the Xeon E5-1620 v4.
Q: Does the Xeon's 8 threads make it faster than the i3's 4 threads?
A: No, the benchmark data shows the opposite. Despite having 8 threads versus 4, the Xeon E5-1620 v4 loses every multi-core test. Its highest multi-core score is 6230 in R23, while the i3-9320 reaches 6254.
Q: Which CPU consumes less power?
A: The Intel Core i3-9320 has a TDP of 62 watts, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 has a TDP of 140 watts. The i3 uses less than half the power envelope of the Xeon.
Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?
A: Yes, both the i3-9320 and the Xeon E5-1620 v4 support ECC memory. However, the Xeon offers quad-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i3 is dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s.
Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?
A: Only the Intel Core i3-9320 includes integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 630. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU.
Q: Are these CPUs the same in single-core performance?
A: Almost exactly. In Cinebench R15 single-core, both score 88. In R20, the i3 scores 370 versus 369 for the Xeon, and in R23, the i3 scores 882 versus 879, a 0.3% difference in both later tests.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core i3-9320 wins in every benchmark category, but the practical advantages are tied to platform features rather than raw scores. Its 62W TDP makes it far easier to cool and power in a desktop build. The integrated UHD Graphics 630 means it can run a display without a dedicated GPU, which is a genuine usability win for basic systems. The 4.40 GHz boost clock is the highest of either chip, and it pairs with a smaller 126 mm² die. The 38.4 GB/s dual-channel memory bandwidth is sufficient for most desktop workloads, and the Socket 1151 platform offers broad motherboard compatibility. The i3-9320 also has a lower launch MSRP of $154, which can be stated as a fact of record.
The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins on platform capability. Its quad-channel memory bus delivers 76.8 GB/s, double the i3's bandwidth, which matters for memory-intensive server workloads. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes support far more expansion devices than the i3's 16 lanes. The larger 10 MB L3 cache and 8 threads provide headroom for concurrent tasks, even if Cinebench doesn't reflect it. The 140W TDP and Socket 2011-3 platform indicate a workstation-grade design with higher power delivery and cooling requirements. The launch MSRP of $294 reflects its positioning above the i3. For users who need ECC memory (both support it), the Xeon's quad-channel implementation is the more robust solution.
Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Core i3-9320 | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |
|---|---|---|
| Cores | 4 | 4 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.50 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.80 GHz |
| TDP | 62 W | 140 W |
| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |
| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Broadwell |
| Codename | Coffee Lake | Broadwell-EP |
| Generation | Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh) | Xeon E5 (Broadwell-EP) |
| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |
| Die Size | 126 mm² | 246 mm² |
| Transistors | Not specified | 3,400 million |
| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |
| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4 |
| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |
| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |
| ECC Memory | Yes | Yes |
| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |
| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | None |
| Market Segment | Desktop | Desktop |
| Production Status | End-of-life | End-of-life |
| Launch MSRP | $154 | $294 |
| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |
| Part Number | SRF7X | SR2P6 |
| Percentile vs All CPUs | 42 | 42 |
| Average Benchmark Score | 1808 | 1802 |