CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 and the Intel Core i5-3330 are both four-core, four-thread Intel processors, but they were built for different eras and purposes. The Xeon is a Haswell-EP workstation chip on the LGA 2011-3 platform, while the i5 is an Ivy Bridge desktop chip on LGA 1155. Benchmark data shows the Xeon winning every head-to-head test by a consistent margin of roughly 20%, yet both CPUs occupy the same 34th percentile in the global performance distribution. This creates an interesting profile: the newer Xeon is clearly faster in raw compute, but the older i5 remains statistically relevant, suggesting that architectural maturity and platform features matter more than raw generation alone.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 scores 4193, while the Intel Core i5-3330 scores 3486. The Xeon wins by a delta of 20.3%.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon leads in every single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 248 against the i5's 206, a 20.4% advantage. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 591 versus 492, a 20.1% lead.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both are 4-core and 4-thread designs. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading, so the performance difference is not due to thread count.

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

A: The Xeon E5-1607 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1212, while the Core i5-3330 averages 1200. The Xeon is 1% higher, but both fall into the same 34th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-3330 does not have ECC support.

Q: What memory types do the two CPUs support?

A: The Xeon E5-1607 v3 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i5-3330 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus, but no bandwidth figure is listed in the data.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 wins all five head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from 20.1% to 20.4% across multi-core and single-core workloads. For anyone building a workstation or server system, the Xeon is the superior choice from a pure compute perspective. Its 140W TDP and LGA 2011-3 socket suggest a platform designed for sustained, heavier workloads. The i5-3330, with its 77W TDP and integrated Intel HD 2500 graphics, is a lower-power desktop part that, while slower, still holds its own in the 34th percentile. The data suggests the i5-3330 is not obsolete; it remains competitive for basic desktop tasks where the Xeon's platform costs and power draw would be overkill. However, for any task that stresses all four cores, the Xeon's 20% edge is decisive.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1607 v3 dominates every benchmark in the comparison. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 422 against the i5-3330's 351, a 20.2% advantage. This pattern repeats in R20 multi-core with 1761 versus 1464 (20.3%). The R23 multi-core test shows the Xeon at 4193 and the i5 at 3486, again a 20.3% gap. Single-core performance follows the same trend: R20 single-core has the Xeon at 248 and the i5 at 206 (20.4%), while R23 single-core has 591 versus 492 (20.1%). The consistency of these margins across all tests is notable. It suggests the Xeon's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental per-clock efficiency gain. The i5-3330 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Xeon runs at a fixed 3.10 GHz with no boost. Despite having a lower maximum clock, the Xeon still wins single-core tests, indicating that the Haswell-EP architecture delivers more instructions per clock than the Ivy Bridge design.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The Xeon E5-1607 v3 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz with no boost clock, while the i5-3330 has a 3.00 GHz base and a 3.20 GHz boost. The Xeon has a 140W TDP, nearly double the i5's 77W. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, while the i5 uses Intel Socket 1155. Memory support diverges sharply: the Xeon uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the i5 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and no listed bandwidth. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the i5 does not. PCIe lanes also differ: the Xeon offers 40 Gen 3 lanes, while the i5 offers 16 Gen 3 lanes. The i5 includes integrated Intel HD 2500 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon's die size is 356 mm², compared to the i5's 133 mm². The Xeon is a server/workstation part marked end-of-life, while the i5 is a desktop part with no production status listed.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, the Xeon E5-1607 v3 is based on Haswell-EP, a derivative of the Haswell architecture, while the Core i5-3330 is based on Ivy Bridge. Both use a 22 nm process node from Intel, but the Xeon has a significantly larger die (356 mm² versus 133 mm²) and packs 2,600 million transistors, whereas the i5's transistor count is not listed. The Xeon's L3 cache is 10 MB shared, compared to the i5's 6 MB shared. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The Xeon's larger die and cache likely contribute to its higher power consumption but also to its performance advantage. The Xeon is built for a server platform with support for up to 40 PCIe lanes, quad-channel memory, and ECC, while the i5 is a mainstream desktop chip with 16 PCIe lanes and dual-channel memory. The i5's integrated HD 2500 graphics add functionality the Xeon lacks, but the Xeon's architecture is clearly designed for compute-intensive tasks where the i5 would bottleneck.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1607 v3 wins every benchmark in the dataset, making it the clear choice for multi-threaded and single-threaded compute workloads. Its 20% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (4193 versus 3486) means it is better suited for rendering, video encoding, and other CPU-heavy tasks. The Xeon's quad-channel DDR4 memory support and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth also make it a stronger fit for memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, even though those are not directly benchmarked here. Its ECC memory support and 40 PCIe lanes target workstation and server environments where data integrity and expansion are critical. The i5-3330, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins in this comparison, but it does offer integrated graphics and a much lower 77W TDP. For a basic desktop system where dedicated graphics are not needed and power efficiency is a priority, the i5-3330 could be a valid choice, especially given its 3.20 GHz boost clock, which is higher than the Xeon's fixed 3.10 GHz. The i5's smaller die and simpler platform also imply lower system cost, though pricing is not in the data. The Xeon's 34th percentile ranking, identical to the i5's, suggests that in the broader CPU landscape, the two are closer than the head-to-head margins imply. The Xeon is the winner for anyone who needs raw compute, but the i5-3330 remains a functional option for light desktop use where the Xeon's platform requirements are overkill.