Intel Core i5-4670S vs Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 and the Intel Core i5-4670S are both 22nm Intel parts from the same era, but they target entirely different corners of the market. The Xeon is a low-power server chip built for multi-threaded throughput, while the Core i5 is a desktop processor designed for balanced everyday performance. Benchmark data shows a surprisingly consistent margin between them, with the Xeon winning every single head-to-head comparison by nearly the same percentage.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data tells a remarkably consistent story across every Cinebench iteration. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the Xeon E5-1428L v2 scores 535 against the Core i5-4670S's 448, a 19.4% advantage. That same 19.4% delta appears in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Xeon hits 2232 versus 1870, and again in Cinebench R23 multicore with scores of 5316 versus 4454. The pattern is not a fluke; it reflects a structural advantage in parallel workloads.

Single-core results show the same trend, though the margins are slightly more varied. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon leads 75 to 63, a 19% gap. Cinebench R20 single-core widens that to 19.8%, with the Xeon scoring 315 against the i5's 263. Cinebench R23 single-core returns to the familiar 19.4% delta, as the Xeon posts 750 versus 628. The fact that the Xeon wins every single-core test despite its lower clock speed is notable. The Xeon's base clock is 2.20 GHz and boost is 2.70 GHz, while the i5 runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The Xeon's architectural efficiency in the Ivy Bridge-EN generation clearly compensates for its clock deficit in this comparison.

The overall benchmark averages reinforce the head-to-head results. The Xeon's average benchmark score is 1537, while the i5's is 1526, a difference of 0.7% in favor of the server chip. That is a narrow margin on the aggregate, but the Cinebench-specific deltas are all near 19%. The discrepancy arises because the i5 has additional Geekbench scores in its benchmark set (3300 multicore, 1184 single-core) that the Xeon lacks, pulling its average up. Both processors sit at the 38th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in the broader landscape of processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1428L v2 wins in every measured category here. There is no scenario in the provided data where the Core i5-4670S takes the lead. That said, the nature of each win differs. The Xeon's 6 cores and 12 threads give it a clear edge in heavily parallel workloads like Cinebench R23 multicore rendering, where its 5316 score outstrips the i5's 4454. This is the kind of workload that scales with core count, and the Xeon's extra two cores and eight threads pay off directly.

The Xeon also takes single-core performance, which is more surprising given its clock disadvantage. The i5's 3.80 GHz boost clock should theoretically give it an edge in lightly threaded tasks, but the data shows the Xeon ahead by roughly 19% across all single-core Cinebench tests. This suggests that the Xeon's Ivy Bridge architecture, despite being a server part, delivers better instructions-per-clock in this specific benchmark environment.

The i5's only real advantage is qualitative. It features integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. For a system without a discrete GPU, the i5 is the only one of the two that can output video. The i5 also uses dual-channel memory versus the Xeon's triple-channel, but the Xeon's memory bandwidth is listed at 32.0 GB/s, while the i5's bandwidth is not specified in the data. The i5 is a desktop part with a 65W TDP, while the Xeon is a server part with a 60W TDP, making the Xeon slightly more power-efficient on paper despite having more cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 535, 2232, and 5316 in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 respectively, versus the Core i5-4670S's 448, 1870, and 4454. That is a 19.4% margin in each case.

Q: Does the Core i5-4670S win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon winning all six benchmarks, with the i5 trailing by 19% to 19.8% in every test. The i5's overall average score of 1526 is just 0.7% behind the Xeon's 1537, but that is still a loss.

Q: Why is the Xeon faster in single-core tests despite having a lower clock speed?

A: The Xeon's boost clock is 2.70 GHz versus the i5's 3.80 GHz, yet the Xeon still wins single-core Cinebench R23 by 19.4% (750 versus 628). The data indicates the Xeon's Ivy Bridge-EN architecture delivers higher instructions-per-clock than the i5's Haswell design in this benchmark, despite the clock disadvantage.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-1428L v2 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-4670S does not support ECC. The Xeon also uses triple-channel memory with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5 uses dual-channel memory with no bandwidth figure listed.

Q: Can either processor run without a discrete graphics card?

A: Only the Core i5-4670S can, because it includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate GPU for display output.

Q: How do these two compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-4760HQ, which scores 1549 and is 0.8% faster. The i5-4670S's nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-7440HQ, which scores 1527 and is effectively tied at 0% delta. Both processors sit at the 38th percentile among all CPUs.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Xeon has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the i5 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.20 GHz with a 2.70 GHz boost, while the i5 runs at 3.10 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. TDP is close: 60W for the Xeon versus 65W for the i5.

The socket is a major differentiator. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1356, while the i5 uses Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 memory with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory; the i5 supports dual-channel DDR3 with no bandwidth listed and no ECC support. The Xeon's PCIe is listed as "Gen 3, 24 Lanes(CPU only)," while the i5's is simply "Gen 3."

The Xeon has a larger L3 cache at 15 MB shared, versus 6 MB shared for the i5. Both have 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core. The Xeon's transistor count is 1,860 million on a 257 mm² die, while the i5 has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The Xeon is a server/workstation part, while the i5 is a desktop part. The Xeon was released on 2014-01-08 with a launch MSRP of $494; the i5 was released on 2013-06-01 with no launch MSRP listed. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5-1428L v2 is built on Ivy Bridge architecture, specifically the Ivy Bridge-EN codename, on a 22 nm process from Intel. The Core i5-4670S is built on Haswell architecture, also on a 22 nm process from Intel. Both use the same foundry and process node, but the microarchitecture generations differ. Ivy Bridge is Intel's third-generation Core architecture, while Haswell is the fourth generation.

The core organization differs significantly. The Xeon provides 6 physical cores with Hyper-Threading, yielding 12 threads. The i5 provides 4 physical cores without Hyper-Threading, yielding 4 threads. This is the primary architectural driver of the Xeon's multi-core advantage. The Xeon's larger 15 MB shared L3 cache versus the i5's 6 MB also reflects a server-oriented design that prioritizes large working sets and many concurrent threads.

The Xeon's memory architecture supports triple-channel DDR3 with ECC, which is typical for server platforms where data integrity is critical. The i5's dual-channel memory without ECC is standard for desktop use. The Xeon's PCIe implementation is explicitly listed as "Gen 3, 24 Lanes(CPU only)," indicating a processor-centric I/O design, while the i5's PCIe is simply listed as "Gen 3" with no lane count. The Xeon also includes no integrated graphics, whereas the i5 includes Intel HD 4600, reflecting their divergent target markets—server compute versus desktop general use.