Intel Core i5-3475S vs Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-3475S across every shared benchmark, with the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 failing to win a single test. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the margin: in four of the five comparisons, the Core i5-3475S holds a lead of approximately 14.9% to 15%. This uniformity suggests the gap is structural rather than workload-specific.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i5-3475S scores 371 against the Xeon E5-2603 v3's 323, a 14.9% advantage. The same exact percentage appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5-3475S posts 1547 versus 1346. The trend repeats in Cinebench R23 multi-core with scores of 3685 and 3207, again a 14.9% margin. This consistency across three generations of the Cinebench renderer indicates that the multi-core performance gap is stable and not an artifact of a single test version.

Single-core results tell a similar story, though the margin is slightly wider. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3475S scores 218 against 189 for the Xeon, a 15.3% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 520 versus 452, a 15.0% difference. These are the two largest deltas in the comparison, suggesting the i5-3475S has a more significant per-thread advantage than its multi-threaded lead.

Notably, the Xeon E5-2603 v3 has no recorded score for Geekbench multi-core or single-core, nor for Cinebench R15 single-core. The i5-3475S, by contrast, also has Geekbench scores of 1731 multi-core and 607 single-core, though these cannot be directly compared due to missing data from the Xeon. The overall average benchmark score places the Xeon slightly ahead at 1103 against 1091 for the i5, but this is misleading: the Xeon's average is drawn from a different set of tests, and in every head-to-head test, the i5 wins.

The percentile rankings are nearly identical, with the Xeon at 31 and the i5 at 30. This places both in the lower third of all CPUs in the database, but the head-to-head results show that within this pairing, the i5-3475S is consistently faster by a meaningful margin.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and serve different market segments. The Core i5-3475S is built on Ivy Bridge, a desktop-oriented design from the Core i5 generation, while the Xeon E5-2603 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture, a server and workstation platform. Both are manufactured on the same 22 nm process node, but the silicon itself differs substantially.

Core counts favor the Xeon: it has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i5-3475S has 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither part supports simultaneous multithreading, so threads equal cores in both cases. The Xeon's extra two cores do not translate into a performance win, however, because of its much lower clock strategy. The i5-3475S has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 has a base clock of 1600.00 MHz, which is 1.60 GHz, and no boost clock at all. This massive clock difference, up to 2.00 GHz when the i5 is boosting, explains why the 4-core part beats the 6-core part in every multi-core test.

The transistor and die data further separate the two. The Xeon packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, while the i5-3475S has 1,400 million transistors on 160 mm². The Xeon's larger, more complex die is typical of a server processor, but it does not translate into better benchmark performance in this comparison.

Memory and platform support differ substantially. The i5-3475S supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, whereas the Xeon requires DDR4 and supports quad-channel memory. The Xeon's memory bandwidth is listed at 51.2 GB/s, a figure not provided for the i5, but the channel count alone indicates a wider memory path. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not. PCI Express lanes also differ: the Xeon has Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), the i5 has Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only).

Integrated graphics is another clear divergence. The Core i5-3475S includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, while the Xeon E5-2603 v3 has no integrated graphics. This makes the i5 a more self-contained desktop package, while the Xeon requires a discrete GPU.

The sockets are incompatible: the i5 uses Intel Socket 1155, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life production, while the i5 has no such status listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the Intel Core i5-3475S has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How does the boost clock compare?

A: The Core i5-3475S has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon E5-2603 v3 has no boost clock listed. The Xeon's base clock is 1600.00 MHz, which is 1.60 GHz.

Q: Which CPU wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Core i5-3475S wins with a score of 3685 versus 3207, a 14.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-2603 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-3475S does not.

Q: What is the difference in memory channel support?

A: The Core i5-3475S uses dual-channel DDR3, while the Xeon E5-2603 v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i5-3475S has Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-2603 v3 has none.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two processors, based solely on the recorded data:

• Cores: 4 (i5) versus 6 (Xeon)
• Threads: 4 (i5) versus 6 (Xeon)
• Base Clock: 2.90 GHz (i5) versus 1600.00 MHz (Xeon)
• Boost Clock: 3.60 GHz (i5) versus null (Xeon)
• TDP: 65 W (i5) versus 85 W (Xeon)
• Socket: Intel Socket 1155 (i5) versus Intel Socket 2011-3 (Xeon)
• Architecture: Ivy Bridge (i5) versus Haswell (Xeon)
• Codename: Ivy Bridge (i5) versus Haswell-EP (Xeon)
• Generation: Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) versus Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP)
• Transistors: 1,400 million (i5) versus 2,600 million (Xeon)
• Die Size: 160 mm² (i5) versus 356 mm² (Xeon)
• L3 Cache: 6 MB shared (i5) versus 15 MB shared (Xeon)
• Memory Support: DDR3 (i5) versus DDR4 (Xeon)
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel (i5) versus Quad-channel (Xeon)
• Memory Bandwidth: null (i5) versus 51.2 GB/s (Xeon)
• ECC Memory: false (i5) versus true (Xeon)
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (i5) versus Gen 3, 40 Lanes (Xeon)
• Integrated Graphics: Intel HD 4000 (i5) versus null (Xeon)
• Market Segment: Desktop (i5) versus Server/Workstation (Xeon)
• Production Status: null (i5) versus End-of-life (Xeon)
• Release Date: 2012-05-31 (i5) versus 2014-09-07 (Xeon)
• Part Number: SR0PP (i5) versus SR20A (Xeon)

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-3475S is the faster processor in every head-to-head test. It wins 5 out of 5 comparisons, with margins ranging from 14.9% to 15.3%. The Xeon E5-2603 v3's higher core count and larger cache do not overcome the i5's clock speed advantage. The i5-3475S has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon is locked at 1.60 GHz with no boost.

However, the Xeon is a different class of product. It is a server/workstation processor that supports DDR4 memory, quad-channel memory, ECC, and 40 PCIe lanes. It is also marked as end-of-life. For a desktop user who values raw benchmark performance, the Core i5-3475S is the clear choice based on the recorded scores. For a server workload that requires ECC memory, quad-channel memory, and a wider PCIe interface, the Xeon has features the i5 simply does not offer.

The average benchmark scores in the database are nearly identical: 1091 for the i5, 1103 for the Xeon. This is not a reflection of head-to-head parity, but rather the fact the Xeon lacks single-threaded and Geekbench scores, pulling its average up. The recorded head-to-head data shows a decisive win for the i5.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i5-3475S:

• Wins all five head-to-head benchmark tests, including every multi-core and single-core Cinebench iteration.
• Offers the highest recorded clock speeds, with a boost clock of 3.60 GHz.
• Includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, meaning no discrete GPU is strictly required for a basic display output.
• Has a lower TDP of 65 W, which may simplify cooling requirements in a desktop build.
• Targets the desktop segment, making it a drop-in fit for platforms designed around Socket 1155.

Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 wins:

• Provides 6 cores versus 4, which can be beneficial for workloads that scale with core count, even if the benchmark suite here does not show an advantage.
• Offers significantly more L3 cache: 15 MB versus 6 MB.
• Supports ECC memory for error-correcting reliability in server environments.
• Uses quad-channel DDR4 memory with a listed bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, versus dual-channel DDR3.
• Offers 40 PCIe lanes versus 16, which is a major advantage for systems with many expansion cards or GPUs.
• Targets the server and workstation market, with a production status of end-of-life.

The choice depends on the use case. For a desktop user prioritizing benchmark scores, the Core i5-3475S is the measured winner. For a server administrator who needs ECC, memory bandwidth, and PCIe expansion, the Xeon is the appropriate part, even if its Cinebench scores are lower. The data shows no instance where the Xeon out scores the i5, but its feature set addresses a different set of requirements.