Intel Core i3-9320 vs Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for these two processors is unusually one-sided. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the Intel Core i3-9320 takes the win every time, though the margins are narrow. In the multi-core tests, the i3-9320 scores 630 in Cinebench R15 against 617 for the Xeon E5-2637 v3, a 2.1% advantage. The gap widens slightly to 2% in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i3-9320 posts 2626 versus 2574. In R23 multi-core, the i3-9320 again leads by 2%, scoring 6254 to 6130.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, but with even smaller differences. The i3-9320 edges out the Xeon in Cinebench R15 single-core with 88 to 87, a 1.1% lead. In R20 single-core, the margin grows to 1.9%, as the i3-9320 scores 370 against 363. The R23 single-core test shows a 2% advantage, with the i3-9320 recording 882 and the Xeon 865.

The overall average benchmark score tells a similar story. The i3-9320 averages 1808 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon E5-2637 v3 averages 1773. That places the i3-9320 at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with the Xeon just one point lower at the 41st percentile. The Xeon's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3, scores 1777, which is 0.2% higher, while the Core i3-9320's closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U, scores 1810, a 0.1% gap. In short, the i3-9320 is the faster chip in every recorded test, but the differences are narrow enough that real-world workloads might not show a dramatic distinction.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clear pattern: the Core i3-9320 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. That includes both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads across three generations of Cinebench tests. This suggests the i3-9320 holds the edge in tasks that rely on raw clock speed and per-core efficiency, such as lightly threaded applications, gaming, and everyday productivity. With a boost clock of 4.40 GHz against the Xeon's 3.70 GHz, the i3-9320's higher frequency directly translates into its consistent single-core victories.

However, the Xeon E5-2637 v3 is not without its own advantages, even if they do not show up in the Cinebench results. The Xeon supports twice the memory channels, quad-channel against dual-channel, which yields a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s for the i3-9320. That bandwidth advantage does not appear in the CPU-only Cinebench tests, but it matters in memory-sensitive server or workstation tasks. The Xeon also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, compared to 16 for the i3-9320, making it a better fit for systems that need many expansion cards or high-speed storage devices. The Xeon's larger L3 cache, 15 MB shared versus 8 MB shared, can also improve performance in workloads that repeatedly access a large working set of data, even if the Cinebench scores do not reflect that benefit.

For a desktop user focusing on single-threaded speed and integrated graphics, the i3-9320 wins. For a server or workstation user needing memory bandwidth, high lane count, and multi-threading, the Xeon has the structural edge, though the raw rendering scores still favor the i3-9320.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Core i3-9320 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, while the Xeon E5-2637 v3 is built on Haswell-EP and a 22nm node. The i3-9320 has a die size of 126 mm², whereas the Xeon's die is much larger at 356 mm² and contains 2,600 million transistors. The Xeon's larger and older process node explains its higher TDP of 135 watts against the i3-9320's 62 watts.

Both chips have four cores, but the Xeon supports Hyper- Threading, giving it 8 threads total, while the i3-9320 has 4 threads. The base clock on the i3-9320 is 3.70 GHz, boosting to 4.40 GHz. The Xeon starts at 3.50 GHz and boosts to 3.70 GHz. The i3-9320 includes the UHD Graphics 630 integrated GPU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, which is typical for server parts. Both have a 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache differs: the i3-9320 has 8 MB shared, the Xeon has 15 MB shared.

Memory support shows both support DDR4, but the memory bus differs: dual-channel for the i3-9320, quad-channel for the Xeon. Both support ECC memory. PCIe connectivity is another split: the i3-9320 provides 16 lanes of Gen 3, the Xeon gives 40 lanes. The i3-9320 fits into Intel Socket 1151, the Xeon uses LGA 2011-3. The release dates confirm the generational gap: the Xeon E5-2637 v3 launched in September 2014, the i3-9320 in April 2019. Both are end-of-life products. The i3-9320's launch MSRP was $154, while the Xeon E5-2637 v3 launched at $996, though pricing is not a factor in performance analysis.

FAQ

Q: Which processor scores higher in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Core i3-9320 scores 6254, while the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 scores 6130. The i3-9320 leads by 2%.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-2637 v3 have more threads than the Core i3-9320?

A: Yes. The Xeon has 8 threads with its 4 cores (Hyper-Threading enabled), while the Core i3-9320 has 4 threads with 4 cores.

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

A: The Xeon E5-2637 v3 supports quad-channel memory, yielding 68.3 GB/s. The Core i-9320 supports dual-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-9320 includes UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-2637 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i3-9320 averages 1808, and the Xeon E5-2637 v3 averages 1773. That puts the i3-9320 at the 42nd percentile and the Xeon at the 41st.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life. The Xeon was released in 2014, and the Core i3-9320 in 2019.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9320 | Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.40 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 62 W | 135 W |

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

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Haswell-EP |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 356 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 2,600 million |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 15 MB (shared) |

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

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

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 3, 16 Lanes | Gen 3, 40 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

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

| Launch MSRP | $154 | $996 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | No | No |

The specification table highlights the fundamental differences. The i3-9320 is a modern desktop chip with higher clocks and a smaller process node, while the Xeon E5-2637 v3 is a server part with more threads, more cache, wider memory bus, and far more PCIe connectivity. The benchmark data shows the i3-9320 wins all six Cinebench tests, but the Xeon's architectural strengths in memory and expansion are not captured by those particular benchmarks.