CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 and Intel Core i3-9320 are both 4-core processors, but they come from different eras and target different platforms. The Xeon is a 2014-era Haswell-EP server/workstation chip, while the i3-9320 is a 2019 Coffee Lake desktop part. Benchmark data from the FACT PACK shows the Xeon winning all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the margins are consistently narrow, ranging from 0.8% to 1.1%. This is a closer contest than the platform difference suggests, and the deciding factor for a builder will likely come down to the surrounding platform features rather than raw rendering performance.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark results, the Xeon E5-1630 v3 takes a clean sweep, winning every recorded Cinebench test. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 89 against the i3-9320’s 88, a 1.1% lead. In every other test, R15 multi-core, R20 single- and multi-core, and R23 single- and multi-core, the Xeon wins by a consistent 0.8%. This means the Xeon has a slight but measurable edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads as measured by Cinebench.

The i3-9320, however, is not without its own advantages in the broader system context. It includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. For a builder who needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the i3-9320 is the only option that can boot and show a picture on its own. The i3-9320 also has a significantly higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.80 GHz, but the benchmark data shows this does not translate into a win in any tested workload. The i3-9320’s wins are therefore platform-level (integrated graphics, lower power envelope) rather than performance-level in the Cinebench suite.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on different architectures and process nodes. The Xeon E5-1630 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on Intel’s 22 nm process, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. The i3-9320 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on Intel’s 14 nm process, with a smaller die size of 126 mm² and no transistor count listed in the FACT PACK. The Xeon’s older, larger process node and massive die are typical of a server part designed for higher endurance and more extensive I/O, while the i3-9320’s smaller die reflects a mainstream desktop design.

Cache configurations differ in L3 size: the Xeon has 10 MB of shared L3, while the i3-9320 has 8 MB. Both have the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) caches. The Xeon also supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, whereas the i3-9320 is dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s. This is a major architectural difference: the Xeon’s memory subsystem offers nearly double the theoretical bandwidth, which can matter in memory-intensive workloads even if Cinebench does not fully expose it. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for the i3-9320 since ECC is not common on desktop parts.

PCIe lane counts also differ sharply. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i3-9320 provides only 16. This makes the Xeon far more suitable for multi-GPU setups or high-bandwidth expansion cards. The Xeon uses Socket 2011-3, while the i3-9320 uses Socket 1151. The Xeon has a higher thermal design power (TDP) of 140 watts versus the i3-9320’s 62 watts, reflecting its server heritage and the cost of that quad-channel memory controller and extra PCIe lanes.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Xeon wins all six Cinebench tests, but the margins are razor-thin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 635 against the i3-9320’s 630, a 0.8% delta. In R15 single-core, the Xeon wins 89 to 88, a 1.1% delta, the largest gap in the entire comparison. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 2647 multi-core and 373 single-core, versus the i3-9320’s 2626 and 370, respectively, both representing a 0.8% lead. In Cinebench R23, the pattern holds: the Xeon posts 6303 multi-core and 889 single-core, while the i3-9320 manages 6254 and 882, again a 0.8% difference.

These numbers tell a story of near-identical performance in the Cinebench suite. The Xeon’s extra threads (8 versus 4) might suggest a larger multi-core advantage, but the i3-9320’s higher boost clock (4.40 GHz versus 3.80 GHz) compensates in these workloads. The single-core results are particularly telling: the Xeon’s 889 in R23 single-core edges out the i3-9320’s 882, despite the i3-9320’s significantly higher boost clock. This suggests the Xeon’s older Haswell architecture still holds its own in single-threaded efficiency, or that the i3-9320’s boost clock is not sustained in this test. Regardless, the data shows no test where the i3-9320 pulls ahead.

The Verdict

Strictly from the data, the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 is the better performer in Cinebench rendering tests, winning all six head-to-head comparisons. If your workload is primarily CPU rendering as measured by Cinebench, the Xeon is the safer choice, even if the margin is only about 1%. The Xeon also offers quad-channel memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s) and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, which are substantial advantages for workstation tasks like large data sets, virtual machines, or multi-GPU compute.

The Intel Core i3-9320, however, is the better pick for a desktop builder who needs integrated graphics, a lower power draw, or a modern mainstream platform. The i3-9320 includes UHD Graphics 630, which the Xeon lacks entirely, and its 62-watt TDP is less than half the Xeon’s 140 watts. For a simple office machine or a budget build without a discrete GPU, the i3-9320 is the only viable option here. Its dual-channel memory and 16 PCIe lanes are sufficient for a single graphics card and typical desktop use.

Choose the Xeon if you need server-grade memory bandwidth, many expansion lanes, or are building a workstation where Cinebench performance matters and you have a discrete GPU. Choose the i3-9320 if you need a self-contained desktop CPU with integrated graphics, lower power consumption, or are building on Socket 1151. The performance difference in Cinebench is negligible in practice, so the platform features should drive the decision.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 scores 6303, while the Intel Core i3-9320 scores 6254. The Xeon is 0.8% ahead.

Q: Does the Core i3-9320 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-1630 v3 has no integrated graphics listed in the FACT PACK.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i3-9320 is dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s, meaning the Xeon has roughly 78% more theoretical bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v3 provides 40 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i3-9320 provides 16 Gen 3 lanes.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon E5-1630 v3 and the Core i3-9320 list ECC memory support as "true" in the FACT PACK.

Q: What is the single-core score difference in Cinebench R15?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v3 scores 89, and the Core i3-9320 scores 88, giving the Xeon a 1.1% lead, the largest single-test margin in the comparison.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 | Intel Core i3-9320 |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 62 W |

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

| Architecture | Haswell-EP | Coffee Lake |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 126 mm² |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | Not listed |

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | 38.4 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2014-09-07 | 2019-04-22 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $154 |

| Part Number | QFSVSR20L | SRF7X |

| Average Benchmark Score | 1823 | 1808 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 42 | 42 |