Intel Core i5-4570T vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data tells a very one-sided story in this matchup. The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests, with the Core i5-4570T trailing by roughly 28% in every single workload measured. This consistency is unusual; most processor comparisons show at least some swing between single-threaded and multi-threaded tests, but here the gap is remarkably stable across the board.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 382 against the Core i5's 275, a 28% deficit for the i5. The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon reaches 1595 while the i5 manages 1147, a delta of 28.1%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows the Xeon at 3798 versus 2732 for the i5, again 28.1% behind. The Xeon's advantage in raw multi-threaded throughput is clearly tied to its four physical cores versus the i5's two, even though both processors support four threads total.

What is more surprising is the single-core results. The Core i5-4570T has a higher base clock at 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon E5-1603 v3 runs at a fixed 2.80 GHz with no boost at all. Yet the Xeon still wins in Cinebench R20 single-core, scoring 225 against the i5's 161, a 28.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon posts 536 versus 385, a 28.2% margin. This suggests the Xeon's Haswell-EP architecture extracts more instructions per clock than the desktop Haswell part, or that the benchmark environment favors the server chip's memory subsystem. Either way, the data does not support the idea that the i5's higher clock speeds compensate for its architectural position.

The average benchmark scores in the database tell a slightly different story than the head-to-head tests. The Core i5-4570T holds an average score of 1108, while the Xeon E5-1603 v3 sits at 1098. That puts the i5 marginally ahead, by about 0.9%, and both processors land in the 31st percentile of all CPUs tracked. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A10-8850B at 1098 with 0% delta, the Intel Pentium 6805 at 1099 with 0.1% delta, and the Intel Core i5-3450S at 1099 with 0.1% delta. The i5's nearest rivals include the AMD PRO A12-8870 at 1107 with 0.1% delta, the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 at 1109 with 0.1% delta, and the AMD Opteron 4280 at 1107 with 0.1% delta. The average scores suggest both chips occupy a similar performance tier overall, but the head-to-head Cinebench results show the Xeon pulling clearly ahead in those specific workloads.

The discrepancy between the average scores and the head-to-head results likely comes from the different benchmark sets. The i5's average includes Geekbench multi-core and single-core scores of 2016 and 1042 respectively, tests that are not present in the Xeon's recorded data. The Xeon's average is built entirely from Cinebench variants, which may weight differently. The database records both processors at the same 31st percentile, so from a broad perspective they are peers, but the direct comparison in Cinebench favors the Xeon decisively.

The Verdict

From the recorded data, the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the stronger processor in every direct benchmark comparison. If the workload is built around Cinebench-style rendering or heavily threaded applications, the Xeon's 28% lead across all five tests makes it the clear choice. The Core i5-4570T does not win a single head-to-head test in the database, and its higher clock speeds do not translate into any measured advantage.

The Core i5-4570T is not without merit, however. Its average benchmark score of 1108 slightly edges the Xeon's 1098, and it includes Geekbench results that show a single-core score of 1042 and a multi-core score of 2016. Those numbers are not directly comparable to the Xeon because the Xeon lacks Geekbench entries in the database, but they indicate the i5 holds its own in general-purpose tasks. The i5 also runs at 35 W TDP, which is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 140 W, making it suitable for compact or power-conscious builds.

The Xeon E5-1603 v3 targets a different audience entirely. It is a server and workstation part with ECC memory support, quad-channel DDR4 memory, and a 40-lane PCIe Gen 3 implementation. The i5 is a desktop part with dual-channel DDR3 and no ECC support. Buyers building a workstation that demands memory reliability and expansion capability should pick the Xeon. Buyers assembling a low-power desktop where the integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics in the i5 removes the need for a discrete GPU should pick the i5. The data does not support a universal recommendation; it supports a use-case-specific one.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's Haswell architecture and the same 22 nm process node, but they diverge in almost every other architectural detail. The Core i5-4570T uses the Haswell desktop design with a die size of 177 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses the Haswell-EP server variant, a substantially larger die at 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors. The extra silicon accommodates additional memory controllers, more cache, and server-oriented features.

The core configurations differ significantly. The i5 has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. The Xeon has 4 physical cores but only 4 threads, meaning no Hyper-Threading. Despite having twice the physical core count, the Xeon's thread count matches the i5's because the i5 uses simultaneous multithreading to double its logical cores. This explains why the Xeon's multi-core advantage is present but not overwhelming; it has more physical execution units but the same number of logical threads.

Cache hierarchies reflect the server positioning of the Xeon. The i5 carries 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon matches the per-core L1 and L2 allocations at 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively, bumps the shared L3 to 10 MB, which is 2.5 times the i5's total L3. Larger shared cache allows more working data to remain on-die, reducing trips to memory.

Memory support is where the architectures truly separate into different product classes. The i5 supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus. The Xeon moves to DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with a peak bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, the i5 does not. The Xeon's memory bandwidth advantage is enormous in aggregate, and for memory-intensive server workloads that bandwidth is a primary selling point.

The integrated graphics situation is another clear split. The i5 includes Intel HD 4600 graphics, the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. Server and workstation builds are expected to pair with discrete GPUs, so the absence of integrated graphics is a non-issue for Xeon buyers. The i5's HD 4600 allows a full desktop system without a graphics card, which is a meaningful feature for low-cost or space-constrained systems.

The PCIe implementation also differs in scale. The i5 uses PCIe Gen 3, the Xeon uses PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The Xeon's CPU alone provides 40 PCIe lanes, enabling extensive expansion cards without needing a separate chipset hub. The i5's PCIe implementation is standard desktop fare.

The release dates place the two chips about 15 months apart. The i5 arrived in June 2013, the Xeon September 2014. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, the i5 has no recorded production status, but both are legacy platforms by current standards. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

The Xeon's part number is SR20K, the i5 SR14R. The Xeon's generation is listed as Xeon E5 in the Haswell-EP family, the i5 generation as Core i5 in the Haswell family. Both are manufactured by Intel and both use the Intel Socket 1150 socket, the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3 for the i5.

Specification Differences

The specification comparison shows where the two parts diverge in measurable hardware attributes. The i5 has 2 cores and 4 threads, the Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads. The i5's base clock is 2.90 GHz, the Xeon's is 2.80 GHz. The i5 has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, the Xeon has no boost clock. The i5 runs at 35 W TDP, the Xeon at 140 W TDP, a fourfold difference in power draw.

Memory specifications differ completely. The i5 uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus. The Xeon uses DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with a measured bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The i5 has no memory bandwidth figure recorded. The i5 does not support ECC memory, the Xeon does. The i5 has integrated HD 4600 graphics, the Xeon has none.

The Xeon carries 10 MB of shared L3 cache versus the i5's 4 MB. The Xeon's die is 356 mm² versus the i5's 177 mm², and the transistor count is 2,600 million versus 1,400 million. The Xeon is a server and workstation part, the i5 is a desktop part. The Xeon's socket is Intel Socket 2011-3, the i5's is Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon's PCIe implementation provides 40 lanes, the i5's PCIe Gen 3 implementation is not quantified in the database. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, the i5 has no production status recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark tests in the database?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins all five recorded head-to-head tests against the Core i5-4570T. The i5 wins zero head-to-head tests.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two in Cinebench R23?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 3798 and the i5 scores 2732, a 28.1% difference. In single-core, the Xeon scores 536 and the i5 scores 385, a 28.2% difference.

Q: Does the Core i5-4570T have a higher clock speed than the Xeon?

A: Yes. The i5 has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and no boost clock.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The i5 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus. The Xeon supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and it supports ECC memory while the i5 does not.

Q: Does the Xeon have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 has no integrated graphics. The Core i5-4570T includes Intel HD 4600.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i5 has an average benchmark score of 1108, the Xeon has 1098. Both sit in the 31st percentile of all CPUs tracked.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every direct benchmark comparison in the database, so in pure performance terms it is the stronger chip. Its wins are consistent across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core. The Xeon is the right choice for rendering workloads, video encoding, scientific computing, or any task that scales with Cinebench-style multi-threaded performance. Its 4 physical cores and 10 MB of L3 cache give it a structural advantage over the i5's 2 cores and 4 MB of L3.

The Xeon also wins in memory-centric use cases. Its quad-channel DDR4 support with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory capability, makes it the appropriate choice for workstations handling large datasets where memory corruption is unacceptable. The 40-lane PCIe Gen 3 implementation supports heavy expansion, such as multiple GPUs or high-speed storage controllers. The i5's dual-channel DDR3 and standard PCIe Gen 3 cannot match that expansion headroom.

The Core i5-4570T wins where power consumption and physical size matter more than raw throughput. Its 35 W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's 140 W, making it suitable for small-form-factor builds, HTPCs, or office desktops where heat and noise are priorities. The integrated HD 4600 graphics means a complete system can run without a discrete GPU, which is impossible with the Xeon since it has no integrated graphics at all.

The i5 also wins in average benchmark score, 1108 to 1098, though that difference is tiny. Its Geekbench results, 1042 single-core and 2016 multi-core, show it can handle general productivity work adequately. The i5 uses the common Socket 1150 platform, which may be easier to source motherboards for in a desktop context. The Xeon's Socket 2011-3 platform is a workstation ecosystem, typically requiring more expensive boards.

For a builder assembling a low-power desktop with integrated graphics, the i5 is the practical pick. For a builder assembling a workstation with ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, and heavy compute loads, the Xeon is the data-backed choice. The benchmark scores are not close in head-to-head testing, but the intended use cases are far enough apart that each processor serves its own segment well.