Intel Core i3-9350K vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 Comparison

The data presents a unique comparison: two Intel desktop processors from different eras, architectures, and price points that end up delivering nearly identical benchmark performance. The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 and the Intel Core i3-9350K are separated by only a fraction of a percent in every tested workload, making this a contest decided by platform features and specifications rather than raw speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably tight, with the Xeon E5-1630 v4 claiming victory in all six recorded tests, but by margins that are statistically negligible. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 651 against the i3-9350K’s 650, a delta of just 0.2%. The single-core R15 test is a perfect tie at 91 points for both processors, with a delta of 0%.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Xeon posts 2714 points in the multicore test versus 2711 for the i3-9350K, a 0.1% difference. In single-core R20, the Xeon’s 383 edges out the i3’s 382 by 0.3%. The most demanding workload, Cinebench R23, shows the same story: the Xeon scores 6464 in multicore against 6456 for the i3, and 912 in single-core against 911, both margins resting at 0.1%.

The average benchmark score reflects this parity. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 averages 1869, while the i3-9350K averages 1867, placing the Xeon just 0.1% ahead. Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs, indicating they belong to the same performance tier. The nearest rivals list confirms this clustering: the Intel Core i5-1035G4 averages 1861, the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 averages 1879, and the Intel Processor U300 averages 1881. In effect, these two chips are interchangeable in compute performance, with the Xeon’s six wins out of six tests representing a sweep that is numerically real but practically meaningless.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts is substantial, even if the benchmark scores are not. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 is built on the Broadwell-EP architecture, a 14 nm design from 2016, and belongs to the Xeon E5 (Broadwell-EP) generation. It packs 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. The i3-9350K, by contrast, uses the Coffee Lake architecture from 2019, also on a 14 nm process, but with a much smaller 126 mm² die and no transistor count listed.

The core configurations differ in a critical way. The Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads, leveraging Hyper-Threading to process two threads per core. The i3-9350K is a 4-core, 4-thread part, lacking that capability. Despite this, the i3 matches the Xeon’s performance by relying on significantly higher clock speeds. The Xeon’s base clock is 3.70 GHz with a 4.00 GHz boost, while the i3 runs at a 4.00 GHz base and boosts to 4.60 GHz. This clock advantage compensates for the i3’s missing threads in these specific benchmarks.

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in the L3 portion. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The Xeon offers 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i3 provides 8 MB. Memory support is a major split: the Xeon uses a quad-channel DDR4 memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, while the i3 is limited to dual-channel with 38.4 GB/s. Both support ECC memory, a rarity for consumer chips like the i3.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350K boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 reaches a maximum of 4.00 GHz.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon E5-1630 v4 and the Core i3-9350K list ECC memory support as a feature.

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

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v4 provides 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth via a quad-channel memory bus, whereas the Core i3-9350K offers 38.4 GB/s through a dual-channel bus, exactly half the bandwidth.

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v4 has 8 threads across its 4 cores, while the Core i3-9350K has 4 threads across its 4 cores.

Q: Are these processors similar in overall performance?

A: The data shows they are extremely close: the Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1869 versus 1867 for the i3, a difference of only 0.1%, and both sit at the 42nd percentile.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 8 MB on the Core i3-9350K.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every specification except core count, L1 cache, and L2 cache. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 has 8 threads versus 4 on the i3-9350K. Base clocks are 3.70 GHz for the Xeon and 4.00 GHz for the i3; boost clocks are 4.00 GHz and 4.60 GHz, respectively. The Xeon’s TDP is 140 watts, while the i3 draws 91 watts.

The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, while the i3 fits Intel Socket 1151. The Xeon is built on the Broadwell-EP architecture with a 246 mm² die and 3,400 million transistors; the i3 uses Coffee Lake with a 126 mm² die. L3 cache is 10 MB on the Xeon versus 8 MB on the i3. The Xeon’s memory bus is quad-channel with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, versus dual-channel at 38.4 GB/s for the i3. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes, the i3 only 16. The i3 includes integrated UHD 630 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The i3 has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon does not. The Xeon launched on 2016-06-19 with an MSRP of $406, while the i3 launched on 2019-04-22 with an MSRP of $184.

The Verdict

The benchmark data makes one thing clear: there is no performance winner here. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 wins all six head-to-head tests, but the margins range from 0% to 0.3%, and the average scores are essentially identical. The choice between these two must be made on platform characteristics, not compute results.

The Xeon E5-1630 v4 is the choice for systems that need maximum memory bandwidth and expansion capability. Its quad-channel memory bus delivers 76.8 GB/s, double the i3’s 38.4 GB/s, and its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes offer far more room for storage and accelerator cards. The 10 MB L3 cache and 8 threads provide a structural edge in heavily threaded workloads, even if Cinebench does not reveal it.

The Core i3-9350K is the better fit for a simpler, more power-efficient build. Its 91-watt TDP is significantly lower than the Xeon’s 140 watts, and its integrated UHD 630 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, which could push its 4.60 GHz boost clock even higher. Its dual-channel memory and 16 PCIe lanes are sufficient for mainstream use.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1630 v4 wins in memory-intensive applications. The quad-channel bus at 76.8 GB/s is the deciding advantage, offering double the bandwidth of the i3-9350K. It also wins in scenarios requiring many PCIe devices, with 40 Gen 3 lanes versus 16. In multithreaded rendering, the Xeon’s 8 threads and 10 MB L3 cache provide a theoretical edge, though the measured Cinebench scores show only a 0.1% to 0.2% lead.

The Core i3-9350K wins on power efficiency and platform simplicity. Its 91-watt TDP is 49 watts lower than the Xeon’s, reducing cooling requirements and operating costs. The integrated UHD 630 graphics make it a self-contained solution for displays, whereas the Xeon requires a separate graphics card. For users who prioritize overclocking, the i3’s unlocked multiplier is a clear benefit. In raw performance, the i3 loses every benchmark by a hair, but its 4.00 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost clocks keep it within 0.3% of the Xeon in single-core tests.

The data ultimately recommends the i3-9350K for most desktop users seeking a modern, efficient, and flexible platform. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 remains relevant only for those who specifically need quad-channel memory, abundant PCIe lanes, or the Xeon’s server-grade feature set. Both processors are end-of-life, but their benchmark parity means the decision hinges entirely on the surrounding platform, not the chip itself.