Intel Core i5-4460 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 across every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. The Xeon wins all six tests, with the Intel Core i5-4460 trailing by a consistent margin of roughly 13% in each workload. The narrowest gap appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the i5-4460 scores 59 against the Xeon's 68, a delta of 13.2%. The widest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 486 versus 421, a 13.4% deficit for the i5.

The pattern holds across newer Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2027 while the i5-4460 manages 1758, a 13.3% difference. The single-core R20 result shows 286 for the Xeon and 248 for the i5, also 13.3% apart. Moving to Cinebench R23, the Xeon's multi-core score of 4827 outpaces the i5's 4188 by 13.2%, and the single-core result of 681 versus 591 is the same 13.2% gap. These consistent deltas suggest the Xeon's advantage is structural rather than workload-specific, tied directly to its thread count and cache allocation.

The i5-4460's nearest rivals in the database include the AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314 and AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, both with an average score of 1415 and a 0% delta. The Intel Core i7-3840QM sits at 1416 with a 0.1% deficit, and the Intel Core i7-2700K at 1419 with a 0.3% deficit. For the Xeon E3-1240L v3, the closest competitors are the Intel Core i5-6500TE at 1399 (0.2% behind), the Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 at 1401 (0.4% behind), the Intel Xeon E-2104G at 1402 (0.4% behind), and the Intel Pentium Gold G7400TE at 1404 (0.6% behind). Both processors land at the 37th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite the Xeon's consistent head-to-head victories.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is defined by the magnitude of its advantage and the specific workloads where it excels. The largest delta in absolute terms appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon leads by 639 points. This is the most demanding rendering workload in the dataset, and the Xeon's 8 threads allow it to scale better than the i5-4460's 4 threads. The multi-core deltas of 13.2% to 13.4% across all three Cinebench versions reinforce this: any application that can utilize more than four threads will favor the Xeon.

Single-core performance also favors the Xeon, though the margin is similar. The Xeon's single-core scores of 68, 286, and 681 in R15, R20, and R23 respectively outpace the i5's 59, 248, and 591. The consistent 13.2% to 13.3% single-core delta is notable because the i5-4460 has a higher base clock of 3.20 GHz and a higher boost clock of 3.40 GHz, while the Xeon operates at 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. Despite the clock disadvantage, the Xeon still wins single-threaded tests, which indicates its architecture or memory configuration compensates for the lower frequency.

For the i5-4460, there are no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. However, the i5 does have a notable advantage in thermals and power draw. The i5-4460 carries a TDP of 84 W, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 is rated at just 25 W. This makes the Xeon a more efficient part for sustained workloads, but the i5's higher clocks may still appeal to users who prioritize raw single-thread responsiveness in lightly threaded applications. The i5 also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics, so the i5 can power a display without a discrete GPU.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 outperforms the Intel Core i5-4460 in every benchmark recorded, with a consistent 13.2% to 13.4% margin across both single-core and multi-core tests. The Xeon's average benchmark score of 1396 is slightly lower than the i5's 1415, but that difference is within the noise of the nearest-rival comparisons, and the head-to-head results are what matter for a direct comparison.

Users should pick the Xeon E3-1240L v3 if their workload is multi-threaded or if they require ECC memory support, which the Xeon provides and the i5 does not. The Xeon's 8 threads give it a clear advantage in rendering, compilation, and server-style workloads. Its 25 W TDP also makes it far more power-efficient than the i5's 84 W rating, which is a critical factor for always-on systems or dense deployments.

The i5-4460 is the better choice only in scenarios where integrated graphics are required, since the Xeon has none. For a basic desktop build without a discrete GPU, the i5's Intel HD 4600 is a functional fallback. The i5 also offers higher clock speeds, but the benchmark data shows this does not translate into higher performance, even in single-threaded tests. The i5's launch MSRP is $187, while the Xeon's launch MSRP is $278, but neither processor is in current production, so pricing is a historical footnote.

In summary, the Xeon wins on raw performance, efficiency, and memory features. The i5 wins only on integrated graphics and lower launch price. For any workload that can use more than four threads, the Xeon is the clear choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins all multi-core benchmarks. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 4827 versus the i5-4460's 4188, a 13.2% advantage. The R20 multi-core result is 2027 versus 1758 (13.3% ahead), and R15 multi-core is 486 versus 421 (13.4% ahead).

Q: Does the i5-4460 win any single-core tests?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins every single-core benchmark as well. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 681 against the i5's 591, a 13.2% lead. The R20 and R15 single-core results show the same pattern, with the Xeon ahead by 13.3% and 13.2% respectively.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: Both processors have 4 physical cores. The i5-4460 has 4 threads, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 8 threads via Hyper-Threading. This thread advantage is the primary reason the Xeon leads in multi-core workloads.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports ECC memory. The i5-4460 does not have ECC support. Both use DDR3 memory with dual-channel support and a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v3 has a TDP of 25 W, while the i5-4460 has a TDP of 84 W. The Xeon is significantly more power-efficient, which is a major advantage for sustained workloads and dense server environments.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The i5-4460 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has no integrated graphics. This means the i5 can run a display without a separate GPU, but the Xeon requires a discrete graphics card.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm Haswell architecture, but they target different market segments. The i5-4460 is a desktop part with the codename Haswell, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 is a server/workstation part with the codename Haswell-WS. The Xeon's variant is designed for lower power consumption and server features.

The core counts are identical at 4, but the thread counts differ: the i5 has 4 threads, and the Xeon has 8 threads. This is the single most important architectural difference for performance. The Xeon's additional threads allow it to handle more concurrent work, which explains its consistent multi-core wins.

Cache configuration also differs. The i5-4460 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has the same L1 and L2 sizes but 8 MB of shared L3 cache, a 2 MB increase. This larger L3 cache likely contributes to the Xeon's single-core wins despite its lower clock speeds.

Clock speeds favor the i5 in theory. The i5-4460 runs at 3.20 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, while the Xeon runs at 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The i5 has higher frequencies, yet the Xeon still wins single-threaded benchmarks, suggesting the Xeon's cache or memory subsystem compensates for the clock deficit.

Both processors use the Intel Socket 1150 and support PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The die size differs slightly: the i5 measures 177 mm², while the Xeon measures 160 mm², despite both using 1,400 million transistors. The Xeon's smaller die and lower TDP (25 W versus 84 W) indicate a more power-optimized design.

Memory support is identical in capacity and bandwidth: both support DDR3 with dual-channel access and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The key difference is ECC support, which the Xeon has and the i5 lacks. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting memory in server environments.

The i5-4460 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, while the Xeon has none. The i5 is a desktop part, and the Xeon is marked for server/workstation use. Both are end-of-life products, released on the same date, and both have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking. The i5's part number is SR1QK, and the Xeon's is SR1T8.