Intel Core i5-4690 vs Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 wins every single recorded Cinebench test against the Intel Core i5-4690. Across six head-to-head comparisons, the Xeon takes all six, with margins that are consistent but modest. The largest single advantage appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon leads by 2.1%. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, at 1.5%. Every other test sits between those bounds, with the multicore runs showing a 1.8% to 1.9% gap.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core i5-4690 scores 479 against the Xeon's 488, a 1.8% deficit. The single-core R15 test shows 67 versus 68, a 1.5% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore result is 1996 for the i5 and 2034 for the Xeon, a 1.9% difference. The single-core R20 test records 281 versus 287, the largest relative gap at 2.1%. In Cinebench R23, the multicore scores are 4754 and 4845, a 1.9% difference, while the single-core test shows 671 versus 684, also 1.9%.

The average benchmark score tells the same story. The Core i5-4690 averages 1375 across its recorded benchmarks, while the Xeon E3-1220 v5 averages 1401. That is a 26-point gap, or roughly 1.9% on the average score. The percentile rankings reflect this narrow margin: the i5-4690 sits at the 36th percentile among all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon sits at the 37th percentile. These are adjacent positions, meaning the two processors are effectively comparable in overall standing despite the Xeon's consistent head-to-head advantage.

The nearest rivals for each chip confirm how tightly grouped this performance class is. The Core i5-4690's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-1030NG7 with an average score of 1376, a delta of -0.1%. The i7-3740QM trails at 1378 (-0.2%), and both the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 and Ryzen 3 PRO 2300U score 1379 (-0.3%). The Xeon E3-1220 v5 is bracketed by the Xeon E-2104G at 1402 (0% delta), the Core i5-6500TE at 1399 (0.1%), the Pentium Gold G7400TE at 1404 (-0.2%), and the Xeon E3-1240L v3 at 1396 (0.4%). In both cases, the nearest rivals are within a fraction of a percent, indicating that neither chip has a meaningful competitive buffer over its immediate peers.

The Verdict

The Xeon E3-1220 v5 wins on every recorded benchmark, but the margins are thin. This is not a case of one chip being decisively faster; it is a case of the newer processor consistently edging out the older one by roughly 2% across the board. If the decision rests purely on raw Cinebench performance, the data favors the Xeon without exception.

However, the verdict is not a simple recommendation for the Xeon. The Core i5-4690 has a decisive feature that the Xeon lacks: integrated graphics. The i5-4690 includes Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon E3-1220 v5 has no integrated graphics at all. For a system that needs display output without a discrete GPU, the i5-4690 is the only option between these two. The Xeon requires a separate graphics card, which changes the system build entirely.

The market segments also point in different directions. The i5-4690 is a desktop part, while the Xeon E3-1220 v5 is designed for server and workstation use. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the i5 does not. The Xeon also supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the i5 is limited to DDR3. These are architectural and platform differences that matter more than the 2% benchmark gap.

For a user building a new workstation with ECC memory and a discrete GPU, the Xeon E3-1220 v5 is the data-backed choice. For a user with an existing Socket 1150 platform, or one who needs integrated graphics, the Core i5-4690 remains viable despite its slightly lower scores. The benchmark results do not justify replacing an i5-4690 system with a Xeon build on performance alone; the margins are too small. But for a fresh build where ECC support and DDR4 are priorities, the Xeon's wins in every test reinforce its suitability.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Core i5-4690 uses the Haswell architecture, built on a 22 nm process node. The Xeon E3-1220 v5 uses the Skylake architecture, built on a 14 nm process node. The smaller node gives the Xeon a transistor density advantage: 1,750 million transistors on a 122 mm² die, versus 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die for the i5-4690. The Xeon packs more transistors into a smaller area, which contributes to its efficiency despite lower clock speeds.

Both chips have 4 cores and 4 threads, so the thread count is identical. The cache hierarchy shows partial overlap: both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache differs, with the i5-4690 offering 6 MB and the Xeon offering 8 MB. That 2 MB additional shared cache is likely one factor in the Xeon's consistent benchmark edge.

The memory support is a major architectural divergence. The i5-4690 supports only DDR3 memory, while the Xeon E3-1220 v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The Xeon's memory bandwidth is recorded at 34.1 GB/s, a figure not listed for the i5. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not. For error-correcting memory in a workstation context, the Xeon is the clear architectural winner.

The sockets are different: the i5-4690 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151. They are not interchangeable. The integrated graphics situation splits them sharply: the i5-4690 includes Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon's PCIe is listed as Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i5's PCIe is simply Gen 3 without a lane count in the database.

The Xeon is marked end-of-life in production status, while the i5-4690 has no recorded production status. The release dates differ by roughly 18 months: the i5-4690 was released in April 2014, and the Xeon in October 2015. The Xeon carries the part number SR2LG.

Specification Differences

The most direct specification comparison shows the i5-4690 with higher clock speeds. The Core i5-4690 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Xeon E3-1220 v5 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Despite the 400 MHz base clock deficit and 300 MHz boost deficit, the Xeon still wins every benchmark, which points to architectural efficiency and the larger L3 cache offsetting the clock disadvantage.

Thermal design power differs slightly: the i5-4690 is rated at 84 W, while the Xeon E3-1220 v5 is rated at 80 W. The Xeon delivers better benchmark results with 4 W lower TDP. The sockets are different, as noted: Socket 1150 for the i5, Socket 1151 for the Xeon. The i5 supports DDR3 memory only, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon and absent on the i5.

The process node difference is significant: 22 nm for the i5 versus 14 nm for the Xeon. Transistor counts are 1,400 million versus 1,750 million, and die sizes are 177 mm² versus 122 mm². The L3 cache is 6 MB shared on the i5 versus 8 MB shared on the Xeon. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $203, while the i5-4690 has no recorded launch MSRP. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the i5 has Intel HD 4600. The Xeon's market segment is server/workstation, while the i5 is desktop. Both have locked multipliers.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i5-4690 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The i5 is faster on both metrics.

Q: Which CPU performs better in Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E3-1220 v5 wins in both R23 tests. In multicore, it scores 4845 against the i5-4690's 4754, a 1.9% margin. In single-core, it scores 684 against 671, also 1.9%.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1220 v5 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E3-1220 v5 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-4690 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory types does each CPU support?

A: The Core i5-4690 supports DDR3 only. The Xeon E3-1220 v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s.

Q: Do these CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: The Core i5-4690 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Xeon E3-1220 v5 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What are the sockets for each CPU?

A: The Core i5-4690 uses Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon E3-1220 v5 uses Intel Socket 1151. They are not compatible with each other's motherboards.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1220 v5 wins in every recorded benchmark. Its advantages are consistent across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multicore tests. The margins range from 1.5% to 2.1%, with the largest win in R20 single-core. The Xeon also wins on architecture: it has a smaller 14 nm process node, a larger 8 MB L3 cache, support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, ECC support, and a lower TDP of 80 W versus 84 W. For a server or workstation build where ECC memory is required, the Xeon is the only choice between these two. Its 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth is a recorded advantage that the i5 lacks.

The Core i5-4690 wins in specific practical categories. It has higher base and boost clocks, 3.40 GHz and 3.80 GHz, which may benefit lightly threaded workloads that do not scale with cache size. It includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, making it usable without a discrete GPU. It has a higher percentile context only marginally: 36th percentile versus the Xeon's 37th, so this is not a meaningful win. The i5's desktop market segment and Socket 1150 platform may be an advantage for users with existing Haswell motherboards. Its lower transistor count and larger die do not translate to any benchmark win, but the integrated graphics is a decisive feature for systems without a dedicated card.

The use-case split is clear: the Xeon wins for workstation and server tasks where ECC memory, D4 support, and the 8 MB L3 cache matter, and where a discrete GPU is already part of the plan. The i5-4690 wins for desktop builds that need integrated graphics, or for users upgrading within the Socket 1150 ecosystem without changing platforms. The benchmark data cannot settle the integrated graphics question, but it does show that in pure compute, the Xeon is ahead in every measured test, even if only by roughly 2%.