Intel Core i5-4670 vs Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 and Intel Core i5-4670 are nearly identical silicon, but the benchmark data shows the Xeon holds a consistent, albeit narrow, edge in every single Cinebench test. The Xeon E3-1226 v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with the largest margin being a 1.1% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core. While the i5-4670 never wins a single test, the differences are so small that real-world application performance would be indistinguishable; the data points to a decision based on platform features rather than raw speed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent, with the Xeon E3-1226 v3 winning every discipline by less than a single percentage point in most cases. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 472 against the i5-4670's 469, a 0.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test is a dead heat at 66 points for both processors, with a delta of 0%. This pattern repeats in the newer R20 and R23 workloads. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1970 versus 1957, a 0.7% lead, while the single-core score of 278 beats 275 by 1.1%—the largest delta in the entire comparison.

The most demanding test, Cinebench R23, shows the same story. The Xeon E3-1226 v3 scores 4692 in multi-core, compared to 4660 for the i5-4670, a 0.7% difference. In R23 single-core, the Xeon's 662 surpasses the i5's 657 by 0.8%. Across all six benchmarks, the Xeon's average benchmark score is 1357 against the i5's 1347, a gap of roughly 0.7%. Both processors sit at the 36th percentile of all CPUs, confirming that they occupy the same performance tier. The Xeon's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-6500T, scores 1362, which is only 0.3% higher than the Xeon, while the i5-4670's closest competitor, the Intel Core i5-7400T, scores 1348, a 0.1% gap. These deltas are within the margin of benchmarking error, making the Xeon's sweep notable but not decisive in practice.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs share the same fundamental Haswell architecture, built on Intel's 22 nm process node with 1,400 million transistors. The critical differences lie in the die size, cache allocation, and platform validation. The Xeon E3-1226 v3 uses a Haswell-WS die measuring 160 mm², while the Core i5-4670 uses a larger 177 mm² die. Despite the smaller physical footprint, the Xeon packs more cache: 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 6 MB on the i5. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the extra 2 MB of L3 gives the Xeon an advantage in workloads that repeatedly access a large working set.

The feature split is where the two diverge sharply. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature entirely absent from the Core i5-4670. This is a defining architectural difference for the Xeon's server/workstation market segment. The Xeon also carries a different integrated GPU: the Intel HD P4600, whereas the i5 uses the Intel HD 4600. Both are based on the same Haswell graphics architecture, but the P4600 variant is typically validated for higher reliability in workstation environments. The Xeon's PCIe implementation is specified as "Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only)," while the i5's is simply "Gen 3," suggesting a more restrictive lane allocation on the Xeon. Both CPUs use dual-channel DDR3 memory, but the Xeon's memory bandwidth is explicitly rated at 25.6 GB/s, a figure not listed for the i5. The Xeon's production status is end-of-life, and it launched in May 2014 at a launch MSRP of $213, while the i5 launched a year earlier in June 2013 with no MSRP listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cache, and does it matter?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i5-4670 has 6 MB. The 2 MB difference is the most likely explanation for the Xeon's consistent performance edge, as larger cache can reduce memory latency in repeated workloads.

Q: Do these CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E3-1226 v3 supports ECC memory, which is a critical feature for server/workstation reliability. The Core i5-4670 does not support ECC memory at all, making the Xeon the only viable choice for error-correcting memory configurations.

Q: Are the integrated graphics different between the two?

A: Yes, the Xeon uses the Intel HD P4600, while the i5-4670 uses the Intel HD 4600. Both are integrated into the same Haswell architecture, but the P4600 is the workstation-oriented variant.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon leads by 0.6% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (472 vs 469), 0.7% in R20 (1970 vs 1957), and 0.7% in R23 (4692 vs 4660). These are sub-1% margins, so the difference is negligible for most applications.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Xeon E3-1226 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1357, while the Core i5-4670 has 1347. The Xeon's average is 0.7% higher. Both CPUs sit at the 36th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Core i5-4670 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, both higher than the Xeon's 3.30 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. Despite this clock disadvantage, the Xeon still wins every benchmark in the comparison.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 is the better processor in this head-to-head, winning all six benchmark comparisons. However, the margins are so small—ranging from 0% to 1.1%—that the performance difference alone does not justify choosing one over the other. The decision must be made on platform features. The Xeon's support for ECC memory is the single most important differentiator, as it enables error-correcting memory for data integrity in server or workstation builds. The Core i5-4670, despite having higher clock speeds (3.40 GHz base, 3.80 GHz boost versus 3.30/3.70), cannot match the Xeon's cache size or ECC capability.

For a desktop user who values raw single-thread speed, the i5-4670's higher clocks are a nominal advantage on paper, but the benchmark data shows the Xeon still wins in single-core tests (66 vs 66 in R15, 278 vs 275 in R20, 662 vs 657 in R23). The Xeon's 8 MB L3 cache appears to offset the i5's 100 MHz clock advantage. The i5-4670 does have a slightly larger die size (177 mm² vs 160 mm²) and a desktop market segment designation, but these do not translate into performance wins. The Xeon's server/workstation pedigree, including ECC support and the HD P4600 graphics, makes it the superior choice for reliability-focused builds. The i5-4670 is only preferable if ECC memory is not needed and the slightly lower average benchmark score (1347 vs 1357) is acceptable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 | Intel Core i5-4670 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.70 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 177 mm² |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD P4600 | Intel HD 4600 |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | Not listed |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Not listed |

| Release Date | 2014-05-10 | 2013-06-01 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3 wins in every benchmark category where the data exists. It takes all six head-to-head tests, including multi-core and single-core workloads across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its wins are driven by the larger 8 MB L3 cache and ECC memory support, which make it the appropriate choice for server/workstation environments where data integrity is paramount. The Xeon's 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth, while not compared directly to the i5, provides a defined specification for memory-heavy tasks. It is the pick for ECC memory users, error-sensitive workloads, and long-running server processes.

The Intel Core i5-4670 does not win a single benchmark in this comparison, but it holds its own as a desktop processor. Its higher base and boost clocks (3.40/3.80 GHz) are its only nominal advantages, though they do not translate into benchmark victories. The i5's larger die size (177 mm²) and desktop market segment suggest it was designed for consumer workloads, but the data shows no performance category where it leads. It is the appropriate choice only when ECC memory is not required and the user prefers a desktop-oriented part with a slightly higher clock speed on paper. The i5-4670's average benchmark score of 1347 places it at the 36th percentile, matching the Xeon's percentile, so neither chip offers a meaningful performance class advantage over the other.