Intel Core i3-9350K vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous across every recorded Cinebench workload: the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core i3-9350K. The margins are narrow but consistent, with the Xeon holding a 2.1% to 2.3% advantage across both multi-core and single-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 664 against the i3-9350K’s 650, a 2.1% gap. The single-core R15 result is similar: 93 for the Xeon versus 91 for the i3, a 2.2% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 2769 in multi-core versus 2711 for the i3, again 2.1% ahead, and in single-core it leads 391 to 382, a 2.3% margin. The newest workload, Cinebench R23, shows the same pattern: 6595 versus 6456 in multi-core (2.1% gap) and 931 versus 911 in single-core (2.1% gap). No test in the database gives the Core i3-9350K a victory; the Xeon E5-2620 v3 sweeps the field.

These deltas are small in absolute terms, but their consistency matters. A 2% edge on every single benchmark, across three different Cinebench versions and both workload types, points to a genuine overall performance advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this: the Xeon E5-2620 v3 sits at 1907, while the Core i3-9350K averages 1867. That puts the Xeon roughly 2.1% higher on the aggregate metric. In percentile terms against all CPUs in the database, the Xeon ranks at the 43rd percentile, one point above the i3-9350K’s 42nd percentile.

Looking at nearest rivals for context, the Core i3-9350K’s average score of 1867 places it just 0.1% behind the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 (1869) and 0.3% ahead of the Intel Core i5-9350K’s closest comparable, the Intel Core i5-1035G4 at 1861. The Xeon E5-2620 v3’s 1907 average puts it essentially level with the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 (1908, a 0% delta) and 0.2% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910). The database treats these two processors as near-equals in overall standing, with the Xeon holding a slight but real edge.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2620 v3 wins everywhere in the recorded benchmark suite, so the use-case split is a matter of degree rather than direction. In multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon’s 6 cores and 12 threads give it a structural advantage over the i3-9350K’s 4 cores and 4 threads. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Xeon at 6595, which is 139 points ahead of the i3’s 6456. That is a modest lead in percentage terms, but it is consistent across R15 (664 versus 650) and R20 (2769 versus 2711). For rendering, video encoding, or any heavily threaded task, the database indicates the Xeon is the stronger choice, even if the margin is not dramatic.

Single-core performance is closer, but the Xeon still comes out ahead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 931 versus the i3’s 911, a 2.1% margin. The i3-9350K has a much higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) and a newer architecture (Coffee Lake versus Haswell), yet the recorded scores do not translate that clock advantage into a win. The Xeon leads by 2.2% in R15 single-core (93 versus 91) and 2.3% in R20 single-core (391 versus 382). This means even in lightly threaded applications like older games or single-threaded productivity tools, the data does not favor the i3.

The i3-9350K does have one clear domain where the Xeon cannot compete: integrated graphics. The i3 includes Intel UHD 630 graphics, while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics at all. For a system that must output video without a discrete GPU, the i3 is the only option in this pairing. The i3 also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, whereas the Xeon’s multiplier is locked. The database does not include overclocked benchmark scores, so the potential gain is not quantified, but the capability is present in the specifications.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different market segments. The Core i3-9350K is a Coffee Lake desktop part, fabricated on Intel’s 14 nm process, with a die size of 126 mm². The Xeon E5-2620 v3 is a Haswell-EP server and workstation chip, built on the older 22 nm process, with a substantially larger die of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. The process node difference explains part of the i3’s higher clock speeds: the 14 nm process allows a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost of 4.60 GHz, while the Xeon runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost.

Core and thread counts separate the two clearly. The i3-9350K has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no simultaneous multithreading. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 has 6 cores and 12 threads, offering twice as many threads as the i3. Cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 8 MB on the i3 versus 15 MB on the Xeon. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache and extra cores are typical of a server part designed for multi-threaded throughput.

Memory support differs in width. The i3-9350K uses a dual-channel DDR4 memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 uses a quad-channel DDR4 bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. That is a 55% advantage in theoretical memory bandwidth for the Xeon, which matters for workloads that stream large data sets. Both processors support ECC memory, a feature that is more commonly associated with the Xeon line but is present on the i3 according to the database.

PCIe connectivity also diverges. The i3-9350K provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon’s 40 lanes support more expansion cards, GPUs, or NVMe drives without a chipset bottleneck. The sockets are incompatible: the i3 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The i3 measures 91 W TDP, slightly higher than the Xeon’s 85 W, despite the Xeon having more cores and threads. The i3 is a desktop part, while the Xeon is explicitly a server and workstation processor.

Release dates and market positioning also differ. The i3-9350K was released on 2019-04-22, while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 came out on 2014-09-07, making the Xeon nearly five years older. Both are end-of-life products. The i3 has an unlocked multiplier, the Xeon does not. The i3 has integrated graphics, the Xeon does not. The i3’s part number is SRCZT, the Xeon’s is SR207.

The Verdict

The recorded data points to the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 as the superior processor across every benchmark in the comparison. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (1907 versus 1867), and ranks one percentile higher in the database (43rd versus 42nd). The margins are small, between 2.1% and 2.3%, but they are uniform across three Cinebench versions and both single-core and multi-core workloads. For any user whose priority is raw compute performance, the Xeon is the data-backed choice.

The Core i3-9350K is not without arguments in its favor. It has integrated graphics (UHD 630), an unlocked multiplier for overclocking, a much higher boost clock (4.60 GHz), a newer 14 nm process, and a smaller 126 mm² die. It also draws slightly more power at 91 W versus 85 W, but it is a desktop part with a simpler platform. The i3’s launch MSRP is $184, and it was released in 2019, making it a more modern design. However, none of these advantages translate into a benchmark win in the database. The i3’s only meaningful practical edge is the integrated GPU and the unlocked multiplier, neither of which appears in the Cinebench scores.

For a workstation or server workload with multi-threaded applications, the Xeon E5-2620 v3 delivers more threads (12 versus 4), more L3 cache (15 MB versus 8 MB), higher memory bandwidth (59.7 GB/s versus 38.4 GB/s), and more PCIe lanes (40 versus 16). These are structural advantages that show up even in the relatively modest benchmark margins. For a desktop user who needs integrated graphics and wants the option to overclock, the i3-9350K is the only viable pick in this pairing, but on pure compute metrics, it trails.

The database’s nearest-rival data reinforces that these two chips are close in overall performance. The i3-9350K’s average score of 1867 sits between the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 (1869) and the Intel Core i5-1035G4 (1861). The Xeon E5-2620 v3’s 1907 average sits between the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 (1908) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910). Neither chip is a standout in the broader CPU landscape, but the Xeon is consistently the faster of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests: R15 664 versus 650, R20 2769 versus 2711, and R23 6595 versus 6456. The margin is 2.1% in each case.

Q: Does the Core i3-9350K win any single-core test?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 leads in Cinebench R15 single-core (93 versus 91), R20 single-core (391 versus 382), and R23 single-core (931 versus 931 minus 2.1%, meaning 931 versus 911). The i3’s higher boost clock does not produce a win.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1907, while the Intel Core i3-9350K averages 1867. The Xeon also ranks at the 43rd percentile versus the i3’s 42nd.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the Intel Core i3-9350K and the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 support ECC memory according to the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i3-9350K has integrated graphics, specifically Intel UHD 630. The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life products. The i3-9350K was released on 2019-04-22, and the Xeon E5-2620 v3 was released on 2014-09-07.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9350K | Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 6 |

| Threads | 4 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 91 W | 85 W |

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

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Haswell |

| Codename | 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 | 59.7 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | UHD 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

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

| Launch MSRP | $184 | $417 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | SRCZT | SR207 |

| Cinebench R15 Multi-core | 650 | 664 |

| Cinebench R15 Single-core | 91 | 93 |

| Cinebench R20 Multi-core | 2711 | 2769 |

| Cinebench R20 Single-core | 382 | 391 |

| Cinebench R23 Multi-core | 6456 | 6595 |

| Cinebench R23 Single-core | 911 | 931 |

| Average Benchmark Score | 1867 | 1907 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 42 | 43 |

The specification table shows a clear division: the i3-9350K leans on clock speed, newer process, and integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 counters with more cores, more threads, more cache, wider memory, and more PCIe lanes. The benchmark results favor the Xeon in every recorded test, making it the stronger compute performer despite its older architecture and lower clocks. The i3’s integrated graphics and unlocked multiplier remain its only distinguishing features, but they do not appear in the Cinebench scores.