Intel Core i5-3475S vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data is remarkably one-sided. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins all six shared benchmark comparisons, with every margin falling between 3% and 3.8%. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 54 against the Core i5-3475S's 52, a 3.8% advantage. Across the rest of the Cinebench suite, the pattern is consistent: R15 multi-core shows 382 versus 371 (3% ahead), R20 multi-core shows 1595 versus 1547 (3.1% ahead), and R23 multi-core shows 3798 versus 3685 (3.1% ahead). Single-core results follow the same trend, with R20 at 225 versus 218 (3.2%) and R23 at 536 versus 520 (3.1%).

The overall average benchmark scores tell a similar story, though the gap narrows. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 posts an average of 1098, while the Core i5-3475S posts 1091. That 7-point difference places the Xeon at the 31st percentile among all CPUs, one point above the Core i5's 30th percentile. In practical terms, these are closely matched processors, but the Xeon edges ahead in every measured workload. The data shows no test where the Core i5-3475S takes the lead. Its only additional recorded benchmark, Geekbench, is not part of the shared head-to-head set, but those scores (1731 multi-core, 607 single-core) exist only as standalone figures.

The nearest rival comparisons reinforce this picture. The Xeon's closest competitor, the AMD PRO A10-8850B, matches its 1098 average exactly, with a 0% delta. The Intel Pentium 6805 and Intel Core i5-3450S sit at 1099, just 0.1% higher, while the Intel Core i7-2710QE trails at 1096, 0.1% lower. For the Core i5-3475S, the Intel Pentium Gold G5400 matches its 1091 average exactly, the Intel Core i7-10510Y sits 0.1% above at 1092, and the Intel Core i7-4600M sits 0.1% above at 1093. The AMD Athlon 220GE sits 0.2% below at 1088. These are all within a rounding error of each other, meaning the Xeon's win over the Core i5 is small but consistent across every benchmark.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families, and those differences show up in the platform-level details. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process node, while the Core i5-3475S uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, also on 22 nm. Both are built by Intel, and both have 4 cores with 4 threads. The Xeon lacks a boost clock, running at a fixed 2.80 GHz, whereas the Core i5 has a 2.90 GHz base clock and can reach 3.60 GHz. Despite the Core i5's higher clocks, the Xeon still wins all shared benchmarks, which points to architectural efficiency and platform advantages.

Cache configurations differ notably. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the Xeon carries 10 MB of shared L3, compared to 6 MB on the Core i5. The Xeon also has a much larger physical footprint: 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, versus 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. That larger die reflects the server-oriented design, with a quad-channel DDR4 memory bus offering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core i5 uses a dual-channel DDR3 bus with no recorded bandwidth figure. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon and absent on the Core i5.

PCIe connectivity also separates the two. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i5 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon has no integrated graphics, which is typical for server parts, while the Core i5 includes Intel HD 4000. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, and the Core i5 uses Intel Socket 1155. The Xeon's market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, and it is end-of-life, while the Core i5 is a Desktop part with no production status recorded. The Xeon launched in September 2014, while the Core i5 launched in June 2012.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every shared multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 it scores 382 versus 371 (3% ahead), in R20 it scores 1595 versus 1547 (3.1% ahead), and in R23 it scores 3798 versus 3685 (3.1% ahead).

Q: Does the Core i5-3475S ever beat the Xeon in single-core performance?

A: No. The Xeon wins all three single-core Cinebench tests: R15 at 54 versus 52 (3.8% ahead), R20 at 225 versus 218 (3.2% ahead), and R23 at 536 versus 520 (3.1% ahead).

Q: Which processor has more cache?

A: The Xeon E5-1603 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i5-3475S has 6 MB. Both have identical L1 and L2 cache sizes per core.

Q: Are these CPUs compatible with the same motherboard?

A: No. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Core i5 uses Intel Socket 1155. They also differ in memory support: the Xeon uses quad-channel DDR4, and the Core i5 uses dual-channel DDR3.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-1603 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-3475S does not.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon's average score of 1098 is matched exactly by the AMD PRO A10-8850B, while the Intel Pentium 6805 and Intel Core i5-3450S sit 0.1% higher. The Core i5-3475S's average of 1091 is matched exactly by the Intel Pentium Gold G5400, with the Intel Core i7-10510Y and Intel Core i7-4600M sitting 0.1% higher.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3. It outperforms the Core i5-3475S in all six shared benchmarks, with margins that never drop below 3% and never exceed 3.8%. The average benchmark scores back this up, with the Xeon at 1098 versus 1091. The Xeon also offers platform features that the Core i5 cannot match: quad-channel DDR4 memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, and 10 MB of L3 cache. The Core i5's advantages are limited to a higher clock speed (3.60 GHz boost versus a fixed 2.80 GHz), integrated graphics, a much lower 65 W TDP versus 140 W, and a smaller die with fewer transistors.

For a builder choosing between these two, the Xeon is the stronger performer in every measured benchmark, and it brings server-grade memory and PCIe capabilities. The Core i5 is the more efficient and more flexible desktop part, with a 65 W TDP, integrated graphics, and a boost clock, but it loses in raw compute. The Xeon's percentile ranking of 31 versus the Core i5's 30 reflects how close they are overall, but the Xeon's consistent wins make it the better choice when maximum performance in these workloads matters.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 | Intel Core i5-3475S |

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

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost clock | None | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel Socket 1155 |

| Architecture | Haswell-EP | Ivy Bridge |

| Process node | 22 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | 1,400 million |

| Die size | 356 mm² | 160 mm² |

| L3 cache | 10 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated graphics | None | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production status | End-of-life | Not recorded |

| Release date | September 2014 | June 2012 |

| Part number | SR20K | SR0PP |

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every compute benchmark in the shared set. That includes all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, both multi-core and single-core. Its advantages in memory bandwidth (59.7 GB/s over quad-channel DDR4 versus dual-channel DDR3 with no recorded figure) and PCIe lane count (40 versus 16) make it the better fit for workstation and server workloads where memory throughput and expansion capacity matter. ECC memory support is another point in its favor for reliability-sensitive environments.

The Core i5-3475S does not win any shared benchmark, but it has clear use cases based on its specifications. Its 65 W TDP is less than half the Xeon's 140 W, which makes it far easier to cool and power in a desktop build. It includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, so it can run without a discrete GPU. Its boost clock of 3.60 GHz provides higher peak frequency for lightly threaded tasks, even though the recorded single-core benchmarks still favor the Xeon. The smaller die and lower transistor count suggest a simpler, more cost-effective design for mainstream desktop use.

In practical terms, the Xeon is for someone who needs server-class platform features, ECC memory, and maximum compute performance in the recorded tests. The Core i5 is for someone building a low-power desktop with integrated graphics and no need for the Xeon's workstation platform. The benchmark data does not show any workload where the Core i5 wins, so the choice comes down to platform needs and efficiency rather than performance.