Intel Core i5-3470S vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 and the Intel Core i5-3470S present a clear generational and market-segment split, despite sharing identical core and thread counts. Benchmark data from the Cinebench suite shows the Xeon leading in every single test, but the margins are consistently narrow, ranging from 2.3% to 3.8%. These are not transformative performance gaps; they are incremental advantages that compound over specific workloads. The data indicates a processor that is uniformly faster across the board, yet the underlying architectural and platform differences—such as memory support, socket, and power envelope—create a more complex picture than the benchmark scores alone suggest.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins all six recorded comparisons, while the Intel Core i5-3470S records zero victories. The largest delta appears in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the Xeon scores 54 against the i5's 52, a 3.8% advantage. This is the most pronounced gap in the entire set, indicating a slight per-thread performance edge for the server chip. The multi-core R15 result narrows the margin to 2.4%, with scores of 382 and 373 respectively, showing that the advantage persists when all four cores are engaged.

Moving to the newer Cinebench R20 suite, the pattern holds. The Xeon's multi-core score of 1595 beats the i5's 1558 by 2.4%, while the single-core score of 225 versus 220 represents a 2.3% lead. The Cinebench R23 results mirror this precisely: the Xeon scores 3798 multi-core and 536 single-core, versus the i5's 3711 and 524, both for a 2.3% delta. There is no test where the i5 closes the gap or overtakes the Xeon. The consistency of the 2.3–2.4% margins across multi-core tests suggests a steady clock-for-clock or IPC advantage for the Xeon, rather than a workload-specific anomaly. The single-core R15 spike to 3.8% is the outlier, but it still favors the Xeon. In aggregate, the Xeon's average benchmark score is 1098, placing it at the 31st percentile of all CPUs, while the i5's average score is 1095, at the 30th percentile.

Architecture Differences

These two chips come from different architectural eras and market intents. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture, using a 22 nm process node from Intel's foundry, and is classified under the "Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP)" generation. It has a die size of 356 mm² and packs 2,600 million transistors. The Core i5-3470S, in contrast, is from the Ivy Bridge architecture, also on a 22 nm node, but it is a much smaller die at 133 mm². The transistor count for the i5 is not specified in the data, but the die size difference alone—356 mm² versus 133 mm²—points to a substantially different physical design. The Xeon's larger die is typical of a server-oriented part with additional platform logic, even if the core count is the same.

The memory subsystem is a major differentiator. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The i5 uses DDR3 over a dual-channel bus, and its bandwidth figure is not listed. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon, but not on the i5. The socket interfaces also diverge: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the i5 uses Intel Socket 1155. The PCIe connectivity differs as well, with the Xeon offering Gen 3, 40 lanes (CPU only) versus the i5's Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only). The i5 includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 2500, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Xeon wins every benchmark, the use-case split is not about performance supremacy but about platform fit and specific workload requirements. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the clear choice in any scenario that leverages its quad-channel DDR4 memory and ECC support. The data shows a 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth figure, which is a significant advantage for memory-bound applications such as database servers, virtualization hosts, or data analysis workloads that stream large datasets. The 40 PCIe lanes also make it suitable for configurations with multiple GPUs or high-speed storage controllers, which are common in workstation builds.

The Core i5-3470S, despite losing all benchmarks, holds its own in scenarios where its platform advantages matter. Its 65 W TDP is less than half of the Xeon's 140 W, making it a more power-efficient option for desktop systems with modest cooling requirements. It also has integrated graphics, which means a discrete GPU is not strictly necessary for basic display output. For a general-purpose desktop that handles office productivity, web browsing, and light multitasking, the i5's performance deficit of 2.3–3.8% is unlikely to be noticeable. The i5 also supports DDR3 memory, which is an older and often less expensive standard, though no pricing data is available to confirm cost benefits. The data does not include any benchmarks for the i5 beyond the Cinebench suite and Geekbench, so its broader application performance is less documented here.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal both shared traits and key divergences. Both processors have 4 cores and 4 threads, with no hyper-threading. They share the same 22 nm process node and the same L1 cache of 64 KB per core and L2 cache of 256 KB per core. The L3 cache differs: the Xeon has 10 MB shared, while the i5 has 6 MB shared. The base clocks are close, with the Xeon at 2.80 GHz and the i5 at 2.90 GHz, but the i5 has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, whereas the Xeon has no boost clock listed. The TDP is a major split: the Xeon draws 140 W, the i5 just 65 W. The market segments are distinct—Server/Workstation for the Xeon, Desktop for the i5—and the production status for the Xeon is listed as End-of-life, while the i5's status is not specified. The release dates show the Xeon launching in September 2014 and the i5 in May 2012. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not supported on either. The part numbers are SR20K for the Xeon and SR0TA for the i5.

Other notable differences include memory support (DDR4 quad-channel versus DDR3 dual-channel), ECC capability (true versus false), PCIe lane count (40 versus 16), and the presence of integrated graphics (none versus Intel HD 2500). The Xeon's die size of 356 mm² versus the i5's 133 mm² is a stark physical difference, though the transistor count for the i5 is not provided. The Xeon has a memory bandwidth figure of 59.7 GB/s, while the i5's bandwidth is not listed. The sockets are incompatible with each other, meaning a motherboard choice for one precludes the other.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 outperform the Intel Core i5-3470S in all benchmarks?

A: Yes. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon winning all six Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 2.3% to 3.8%. The multi-core R20 and R23 tests both show a 2.4% and 2.3% lead respectively, while the single-core R15 test shows the largest gap at 3.8%.

Q: What is the most significant architectural difference between the two processors?

A: The memory subsystem is the most substantial difference. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5 uses DDR3 over a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure listed. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i5 does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP, and by how much?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 has a TDP of 140 W, while the Intel Core i5-3470S has a TDP of 65 W. The Xeon's TDP is more than double that of the i5.

Q: Does the Core i5-3470S have any feature that the Xeon lacks?

A: Yes, the i5 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 2500), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. The i5 also has a higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus the Xeon's 2.80 GHz, and it has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon has no boost clock specified.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare between the two?

A: Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs, with the Xeon offering 10 MB shared and the i5 offering 6 MB shared.

Q: What are the release date differences between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1603 v3 was released in September 2014, while the Core i5-3470S was released in May 2012. The Xeon is listed as End-of-life, while the i5's production status is not specified.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward performance hierarchy: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is faster in every benchmark recorded, but the margins are slim, and the choice between these two should be driven by platform requirements rather than raw speed. The Xeon is the appropriate pick for a server or workstation where quad-channel DDR4 memory, ECC support, and 40 PCIe lanes are necessary. Its 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth is a concrete advantage for memory-intensive tasks, and the 10 MB L3 cache provides additional headroom for data reuse. The 140 W TDP is a cost of entry for that platform, and the End-of-life status means it is a legacy part.

The Core i5-3470S is the better choice for a desktop system where power efficiency is a priority, given its 65 W TDP, and where integrated graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic setups. Its 3.60 GHz boost clock gives it a higher peak frequency than the Xeon's fixed 2.80 GHz, which could mitigate some of the benchmark gap in bursty, single-threaded scenarios. The i5's dual-channel DDR3 support is older and narrower, but for typical desktop workloads, the 2.3–3.8% performance deficit is marginal. The i5's average benchmark score of 1095 is nearly identical to the Xeon's 1098, and its nearest rivals include mobile and desktop i7 parts, indicating it remains competitive in its class. Ultimately, the Xeon wins on raw performance and platform features, while the i5 wins on efficiency and desktop practicality. Choose the Xeon for a workstation with specific server-grade memory and expansion needs; choose the i5 for a general-purpose desktop where lower power draw and integrated graphics matter more than a few percentage points of Cinebench score.