Intel Core i5-4670 vs Intel Xeon W-2104 Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-2104 and Intel Core i5-4670 are both 4-core, 4-thread processors, yet they sit on opposite ends of Intel’s design philosophy. The Xeon W-2104 is a server/workstation part built on the Skylake-W architecture with a 14 nm process, while the Core i5-4670 is a desktop Haswell chip on a 22 nm process. Benchmark data shows they are nearly inseparable in raw compute performance, with the Xeon winning all six head-to-head Cinebench tests by margins of 0% to 0.4%. However, their platforms, memory support, and feature sets diverge sharply, making the choice less about speed and more about ecosystem fit. The Xeon W-2104 launches with a 120 W TDP and supports ECC memory, whereas the i5-4670 runs at 84 W, offers integrated graphics, and lacks ECC. Their average benchmark scores are 1350 and 1347 respectively, placing both at the 36th percentile of all CPUs. This analysis explores where each processor wins, how their architectures differ, and what the data implies for potential buyers.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon W-2104 than the Core i5-4670 in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon W-2104 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests by 0.2% each: R15 scores 470 vs 469, R20 scores 1960 vs 1957, and R23 scores 4669 vs 4660. This is a negligible difference in real-world terms.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Core i5-4670 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz, while the Xeon W-2104 sits at 3.20 GHz. The i5 also has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, whereas the Xeon has no boost clock listed.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W-2104 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-4670 does not. This is a critical distinction for workstation reliability.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The Xeon W-2104 uses quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Core i5-4670 uses dual-channel DDR3 memory with no bandwidth figure listed.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i5-4670 includes integrated graphics, specifically the Intel HD 4600. The Xeon W-2104 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon W-2104 has an average benchmark score of 1350, and the Core i5-4670 scores 1347. The Xeon’s nearest rival, the Core i5-7400T, scores 1348, a 0.1% difference.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are remarkably one-sided on paper, yet the margins are so thin that the “wins” are essentially statistical ties. The Xeon W-2104 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, but the largest margin is just 0.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core (276 vs 275). In multi-core tests, the Xeon leads by 0.2% across R15, R20, and R23. This means the Xeon’s advantage is consistent but imperceptible in practice.

The Core i5-4670 does not win a single benchmark in the head-to-head set. However, its real strengths lie outside raw Cinebench scores. The i5-4670 has a higher base clock (3.40 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, which the Xeon lacks entirely. This suggests the i5 could edge ahead in lightly-threaded, clock-sensitive tasks that rely on single-thread bursts, even though Cinebench single-core scores show a tie at 66 in R15.

The Xeon’s wins come from its platform advantages rather than compute speed. It supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, compared to the i5’s dual-channel DDR3. This gives the Xeon a significant memory bandwidth edge for data-heavy workloads. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is a requirement for error-sensitive server or workstation environments. Thus, the Xeon wins in scenarios that value memory throughput and reliability, while the i5 wins in scenarios that value clock speed and integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans four years and two process nodes. The Xeon W-2104 is built on Intel’s 14 nm Skylake-W architecture, while the Core i5-4670 uses the 22 nm Haswell design. This process shrink allowed the Xeon to pack a die size of 484 mm², compared to the i5’s 177 mm². Interestingly, the i5-4670 lists 1,400 million transistors, while the Xeon does not disclose a transistor count.

Both processors have 4 cores and 4 threads, with identical L1 cache of 64 KB per core. The L2 cache differs significantly: the Xeon has 1 MB per core, while the i5 has 256 KB per core. This gives the Xeon a 4x larger L2 cache per core. The L3 cache also differs, with the Xeon offering 8.25 MB shared versus the i5’s 6 MB shared.

The socket and platform are completely different. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2066, which is designed for high-end workstations and servers, while the i5 uses the mainstream Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon supports PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only), while the i5 supports PCIe Gen 3 but does not specify lane count. The Xeon’s market segment is explicitly “Server/Workstation,” while the i5 is a “Desktop” part. The Xeon also has a 120 W TDP versus the i5’s 84 W, reflecting the workstation platform’s higher power envelope.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W-2104 | Intel Core i5-4670 |

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

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 120 W | 84 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2066 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Haswell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 484 mm² | 177 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,400 million |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8.25 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4600 |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 48 Lanes | Gen 3 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2017-08-28 | 2013-06-01 |

| Launch MSRP | $255 | Not listed |

The Xeon W-2104 was released over four years after the Core i5-4670, which explains its newer process node and larger die. The i5’s 22 nm process and 177 mm² die are significantly smaller than the Xeon’s 14 nm and 484 mm². The Xeon’s higher TDP (120 W vs 84 W) is directly tied to its workstation-class memory controller and PCIe lane support.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The six Cinebench tests reveal a pattern of near-identical performance with the Xeon always coming out on top. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 470 against the i5’s 469, a 0.2% difference. The single-core R15 test is a dead tie at 66 for both. Moving to R20, the Xeon leads 1960 to 1957 in multi-core (0.2%) and 276 to 275 in single-core (0.4%). The R23 results follow the same trend: 4669 vs 4660 in multi-core (0.2%) and 659 vs 657 in single-core (0.3%).

The largest relative win for the Xeon is the 0.4% margin in R20 single-core, which is still within run-to-run variance for most benchmarking. The Xeon’s average benchmark score of 1350 is just 0.2% higher than the i5’s 1347. Looking at the nearest rivals, the Core i5-7400T scores 1348 (0.1% from the Xeon), and the Xeon E3-1226 v3 scores 1357 (-0.5% from the Xeon). This places both the W-2104 and i5-4670 in the same performance tier, with both at the 36th percentile of all CPUs.

The data suggests that the Xeon’s architectural advantages—larger caches, newer process, quad-channel memory—do not translate into meaningful Cinebench gains. This is likely because Cinebench is heavily reliant on core count and clock speed, both of which are nearly identical here. The Xeon’s wins are consistent but minuscule, implying that the real differentiators lie in platform features rather than raw compute.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: these two processors are performance twins in Cinebench workloads, with the Xeon W-2104 winning all six tests by margins no larger than 0.4%. The average scores of 1350 vs 1347 are effectively identical, and both sit at the 36th percentile of all CPUs. For anyone choosing solely on raw compute, the data shows no practical winner.

The decision must come down to platform needs. The Xeon W-2104 is the only choice for users who require ECC memory support, quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, or the workstation-grade Intel Socket 2066 platform with 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Its 120 W TDP and $255 launch MSRP reflect a professional orientation. The Core i5-4670, with its 84 W TDP, integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, and mainstream Socket 1150, is the more practical desktop option. Its higher base clock (3.40 GHz) and boost clock (3.80 GHz) give it a clock-speed advantage that the Xeon lacks.

The data implies that the Xeon is for users who need workstation reliability and memory bandwidth, while the i5 is for users who need a simple, lower-power desktop chip with graphics included. Neither processor offers a meaningful performance lead over the other in the tested benchmarks, so the verdict is dictated by ecosystem fit, not speed. The Xeon’s 0.2% average score advantage is real but irrelevant outside of synthetic benchmarking.