Intel Core i3-9320 vs Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture across all six Cinebench workloads: the Intel Core i3-9320 wins every single head-to-head comparison, though the margins are consistently narrow. The largest advantage appears in the multicore tests, where the i3-9320 leads by 1.8% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 alike. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i3-9320 scores 630 against the Xeon E5-4610 v3’s 619, a difference of 11 points. The R20 multicore run shows 2626 versus 2580, and R23 multicore shows 6254 versus 6144. These are not overwhelming victories, but they are uniform.

Single-core results follow the same pattern with slightly smaller deltas. The i3-9320 posts 88 in Cinebench R15 single-core versus 87 for the Xeon, a 1.1% edge. In R20 single-core, the margin is 370 to 364, a 1.6% lead. The R23 single-core test shows 882 against 867, a 1.7% advantage. Across all six benchmarks, the i3-9320’s smallest winning margin is 1.1%, and its largest is 1.8%. No test in the database shows the Xeon E5-4610 v3 pulling ahead, even by a fraction of a percent.

The average benchmark score reinforces this hierarchy. The i3-9320 carries an average score of 1808, while the Xeon E5-4610 v3 sits at 1777. That 31-point gap places the two processors in adjacent performance tiers, with the i3-9320 ranking in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs and the Xeon in the 41st percentile. The delta between their percentiles is minimal, but the direction is consistent with every individual benchmark result.

The nearest rival data also contextualizes these scores. The i3-9320’s closest competitor, the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U, scores 1810, which is only 0.1% higher. The Intel Core i3-9100 scores 1806, 0.1% lower. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 scores 1802, 0.4% lower, and the Intel Core i5-6600K scores 1816, 0.4% higher. The Xeon E5-4610 v3, by contrast, sits near the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 (1778, 0.1% higher) and the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 (1773, 0.2% lower). The i3-9320’s rival cluster is slightly faster on average, but the gap between the two processors’ peer groups is small.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is straightforward based on the benchmark data: the Intel Core i3-9320 wins everywhere. Every multicore test and every single-core test in the database favors the i3-9320. There is no workload category among the recorded Cinebench runs where the Xeon E5-4610 v3 takes the lead.

That said, the nature of the wins differs by workload type. In multicore tests, the i3-9320’s advantage is consistent at 1.8% across all three Cinebench versions. This suggests that the i3-9320’s four cores, despite being outnumbered by the Xeon’s ten cores and twenty threads, are able to sustain a slight throughput advantage. The Xeon’s larger core count does not translate into a win, likely because its base clock is far lower and it has no recorded boost clock. The i3-9320 boosts to 4.40 GHz, which helps it keep pace in threaded workloads even with fewer cores.

In single-core tests, the i3-9320’s margins range from 1.1% to 1.7%. These are the closest results in the comparison, indicating that the Xeon’s per-core performance is not far behind. The Xeon’s 87, 364, and 867 scores in R15, R20, and R23 single-core tests are within a few points of the i3-9320’s 88, 370, and 882. For workloads that depend heavily on single-threaded responsiveness, the i3-9320 is the safer pick, but the Xeon is not dramatically worse.

For users prioritizing memory bandwidth, the Xeon E5-4610 v3 has a structural advantage that the benchmark scores do not capture. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i3-9320 uses dual-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s. Similarly, the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, versus 16 lanes for the i3-9320. These factors matter in server or workstation scenarios, but they are not reflected in the Cinebench scores. The recorded data only measures CPU rendering performance, so any memory- or I/O-bound advantages for the Xeon remain outside the scope of these results.

The i3-9320 also includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. For a desktop system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the i3-9320 is the only option of the two. The Xeon requires a separate graphics card.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Core i3-9320 is the faster processor in every measured test. Anyone choosing between these two for Cinebench-style workloads should select the i3-9320. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, has a higher average benchmark score (1808 versus 1777), and ranks one percentile point higher in the global CPU distribution. The margins are slim, ranging from 1.1% to 1.8%, but they are unanimous.

The Xeon E5-4610 v3 is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside the benchmarks. It offers 10 cores and 20 threads, which is a substantial count, yet the recorded multicore scores show it trailing the 4-core i3-9320. The Xeon’s quad-channel memory bus and 40 PCIe lanes make it more suitable for memory-intensive or expansion-heavy server environments, but the database does not include tests that would demonstrate those advantages. In pure CPU compute, the i3-9320 wins.

The choice comes down to platform context. For a desktop socket 1151 build with integrated graphics and dual-channel memory, the i3-9320 is the clear winner. For a socket 2011-3 server or workstation with quad-channel memory and many PCIe devices, the Xeon may be the logical platform choice, but its compute performance is slightly lower. The data does not support picking the Xeon for speed. It supports picking the Xeon for platform features, not for Cinebench scores.

The i3-9320’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U and the Intel Core i3-9100, both of which score within 0.1% of the i3-9320. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 and the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3, with similar margins. Both processors sit in a crowded mid-range band, but the i3-9320 sits slightly above the Xeon within that band.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i3-9320 has an average benchmark score of 1808, while the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has an average score of 1777.

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i3-9320 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two in any test?

A: The largest gap is 1.8%, which occurs in three tests: Cinebench R15 multicore, Cinebench R20 multicore, and Cinebench R23 multicore. In each case, the Intel Core i3-9320 leads.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-4610 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-9320 also supports ECC memory according to the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-9320 includes UHD Graphics 630. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has no integrated graphics.

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

A: The Intel Core i3-9320 has dual-channel memory with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has quad-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and are built for different platforms. The Intel Core i3-9320 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, with a die size of 126 mm². It is a desktop part with a base clock of 3.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process node, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. Its base clock is recorded as 1700.00 MHz, and no boost clock is listed.

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The i3-9320 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 10 cores and 20 threads, with the same 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but a larger 25 MB shared L3 cache. Despite having 2.5 times the cores and more than 3 times the L3 cache, the Xeon cannot outrun the i3-9320 in the recorded benchmarks.

Memory and PCIe support also separate the two. The i3-9320 supports dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Both support ECC memory. The i3-9320 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

Thermal design power differs significantly: the i3-9320 is rated at 62 W, while the Xeon is rated at 105 W. The i3-9320 uses Intel Socket 1151, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The i3-9320 was released in April 2019 with a launch MSRP of $154. The Xeon was released in May 2015 with a launch MSRP of $1219. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Xeon’s larger transistor count, bigger die, and higher core count reflect its server heritage, but the benchmark data shows that architectural efficiency matters more than raw resources. The i3-9320’s newer 14 nm process and higher clock speeds overcome the Xeon’s core advantage in every Cinebench test. The Xeon’s 22 nm process and 1700 MHz base clock are simply too slow to leverage its additional cores effectively in these workloads.