Intel Core i5-4670 vs Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons, though by margins that are almost uniformly narrow. The largest single advantage appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Xeon scores 280 against the Core i5-4670's 275, a 1.8% gap. Every other test shows the Xeon ahead by either 1.5% or 1.7%, which suggests that the two processors are trading blows at a level close to statistical noise, yet the direction of the advantage never flips.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon posts 476 points versus 469 for the i5-4670, a 1.5% lead. The single-core R15 run is almost identical in percentage terms: 67 for the Xeon, 66 for the i5, again 1.5%. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 1987 versus 1957, and the single-core result is 280 versus 275, which is the aforementioned 1.8% margin. Finally, in Cinebench R23, the Xeon manages 4732 multicore and 668 single-core, while the i5-4670 delivers 4660 and 657 respectively. The deltas here are 1.5% and 1.7%.

What stands out is the consistency of the Xeon's victory across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. The i5-4670 has a higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz), yet it still trails in every recorded test. This is a case where raw clock speed alone does not dictate the outcome, as measured by Cinebench. The Xeon's advantage likely stems from factors other than frequency, which the architecture sections will explore.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this hierarchy, though the aggregate numbers are very close. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 holds an average score of 1368, while the Core i5-4670 sits at 1347. That is a difference of roughly 1.6%, which aligns with the individual Cinebench deltas. Both processors land in the 36th percentile of all CPUs tracked in the database, meaning that despite the Xeon's clean sweep here, the two parts occupy the same general performance tier relative to the broader market.

Where Each One Wins

Given that the Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, the "where each one wins" split is lopsided. The Xeon takes every category the database records: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, each in both single-core and multicore configurations. The largest margin, 1.8%, appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, while the other five tests all fall within a 1.5% to 1.7% band.

That said, the Core i5-4670 is not without its own areas of practical advantage, even if those do not show up as benchmark wins. The i5-4670 carries integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. For a system that needs a display output without a discrete GPU, the i5-4670 is the only one of the two that can serve in that role directly. The Xeon would require a separate graphics card, which makes it less suitable for compact or budget-oriented builds that rely on processor graphics.

The i5-4670 also belongs to the desktop market segment, whereas the Xeon is classified as a Server/Workstation part. In practical terms, this means the i5-4670 is the more natural fit for a consumer desktop build, while the Xeon targets server and workstation environments where ECC memory support and multi-threading matter more. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the i5-4670 does not. For workloads that demand error-correcting memory, such as long-running compute tasks or file servers, the Xeon is the appropriate choice.

In terms of raw compute, the data shows the Xeon winning everywhere, but the margins are small enough that the i5-4670 remains competitive in everyday use. A 1.5% to 1.8% difference in Cinebench scores is unlikely to be perceptible in most real-world applications. The i5-4670's higher clocks mean that single-threaded tasks that are poorly optimized for extra threads may feel just as responsive. The Xeon's 8 threads versus the i5-4670's 4 threads give it a structural advantage in heavily threaded workloads, but Cinebench's own numbers suggest that this advantage is modest in practice, at least for this benchmark suite.

The database does not record any test where the i5-4670 wins, so the use-case split is really about non-benchmark attributes: integrated graphics, memory channel count, ECC support, and market segment.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-threaded Cinebench tests?

**A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins all three multicore Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multicore it scores 476 versus 469, in R20 multicore it scores 1987 versus 1957, and in R23 multicore it scores 4732 versus 4660. The margin is 1.5% in each case.

Q: Does the Core i5-4670 win any single-threaded test?

**A: No. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins all three single-core tests as well. In Cinebench R15 single-core the score is 67 versus 66, in R20 single-core it is 280 versus 275, and in R23 single-core it is 668 versus 657.

Q: How do the two processors compare on average benchmark score?

**A: The Xeon E5-1410 v2 has an average benchmark score of 1368, while the Core i5-4670 has an average score of 1347. Both sit in the 36th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1410 v2 support ECC memory?

**A: Yes, the Xeon supports ECC memory. The Core i5-4670 does not. This makes the Xeon a better fit for server or workstation workloads where memory error correction is required.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

**A: The Core i5-4670 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU would be required for display output.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations for each?

**A: The Xeon E5-1410 v2 supports triple-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s. The Core i5-4670 supports dual-channel DDR3 memory, and the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The most obvious difference is thread count: the Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i5-4670 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's Hyper-Threading capability doubles its logical thread count, which explains its consistent, if modest, lead in multicore benchmarks.

Clock speeds also differ. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The i5-4670 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Despite the i5's higher clocks, the Xeon still wins every recorded benchmark, which suggests that the Xeon's additional threads and larger cache compensate for its lower frequency.

Cache capacity is another point of divergence. The Xeon has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-4670 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) cache sizes. The Xeon's larger L3 cache likely contributes to its benchmark advantage, especially in workloads that benefit from a larger working set.

Memory support differs as well. The Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3 with a listed bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s. The i5-4670 uses dual-channel DDR3, and no bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the i5-4670 does not. The PCIe configurations differ too: the Xeon lists "Gen 3, 24 Lanes (CPU only)", while the i5-4670 lists simply "Gen 3" without a lane count.

Socket and platform are completely different. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1356, while the i5-4670 uses Intel Socket 1150. These sockets are not interchangeable, so a motherboard designed for one cannot accept the other. The market segments also differ: the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part, the i5-4670 is a Desktop part.

Thermal design power is close but not identical: the Xeon is rated at 80 watts, the i5-4670 at 84 watts. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports unlocked overclocking. The release dates differ, with the i5-4670 arriving on 2013-06-01 and the Xeon following on 2014-01-08. The die sizes and transistor counts also differ, with the Xeon at 257 mm² and 1,860 million transistors versus the i5-4670's 177 mm² and 1,400 million transistors, although both are built on a 22 nm process at Intel.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split here is straightforward: the Xeon E5-1410 v2 is built on Ivy Bridge, specifically the Ivy Bridge-EN variant, while the Core i5-4670 is built on Haswell. Both use a 22 nm process node from Intel, so the fundamental transistor geometry is the same, but the underlying microarchitecture is a generation apart. Haswell is the newer design, but the Xeon's Ivy Bridge-EN implementation appears to hold its own in the recorded benchmarks.

The Xeon's larger die size, 257 mm² versus 177 mm², reflects its additional L3 cache and possibly other server-oriented features. The transistor counts tell a similar story: 1,860 million for the Xeon, 1,400 million for the i5-4670. Despite the Xeon's greater transistor budget, its clock speeds are lower, which is typical for a server part tuned for efficiency and reliability rather than peak single-thread performance.

The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the i5-4670. This is a defining architectural difference for the server/workstation segment, where data integrity is critical. The Xeon's triple-channel memory controller provides 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i5-4670's dual-channel controller has no listed bandwidth figure. The Xeon also exposes 24 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i5-4670's PCIe configuration is listed only as "Gen 3" without a lane count.

The Xeon has no integrated graphics, which is standard for server processors. The i5-4670 includes Intel HD 4600, making it a self-contained desktop solution. This is a significant functional difference: a system built around the Xeon needs a discrete GPU, while the i5-4670 can drive a display on its own.

The cache hierarchy differs in total L3 capacity: 10 MB shared on the Xeon versus 6 MB shared on the i5-4670. L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively. The larger L3 cache on the Xeon, combined with its 8 threads, likely explains why it edges out the i5-4670 in every Cinebench test despite the i5's higher clock speeds. In the database's nearest rival comparisons, the Xeon is bracketed by the Intel Xeon D-1521 and AMD Opteron 6376, while the i5-4670 sits near the Intel Core i5-7400T and Intel Xeon W-2104, confirming that the two parts occupy similar performance territory in the broader market.