Intel Core i5-4690 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 across all six Cinebench comparisons, though the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 486 against the Core i5-4690's 479, a 1.5% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 68 versus 67, again a 1.5% lead for the Xeon.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon extends its multicore edge slightly to 1.6%, posting 2027 points compared to the i5's 1996. The R20 single-core test shows the largest gap of the entire comparison, with the Xeon at 286 and the i5 at 281, a 1.8% difference. In Cinebench R23, the multicore scores are 4827 for the Xeon and 4754 for the i5, while single-core results are 681 and 671 respectively, both 1.5% in favor of the Xeon.

The overall benchmark average tells a similar story. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 carries an average score of 1396, while the Core i5-4690 sits at 1375. That translates to roughly a 1.5% aggregate advantage for the Xeon. In percentile terms, the Xeon ranks in the 37th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the i5 lands in the 36th percentile. These are effectively adjacent performance tiers, and the delta between them is small enough that real-world applications would rarely show a meaningful difference.

What matters more than the raw numbers is consistency. The Xeon wins every single test, but never by more than 1.8%. There is no workload category in the head-to-head data where the i5 pulls ahead, nor any where the Xeon runs away with it. For builders comparing these two, the benchmark data suggests they are near-equivalents in raw throughput, with the Xeon holding a slight but repeatable edge.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 22 nm Haswell architecture, and both use the Intel Socket 1150 platform. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses the Haswell-WS codename, while the Core i5-4690 uses the standard Haswell codename. Both integrate 1,400 million transistors, though the die sizes differ: the Xeon measures 160 mm², while the i5 is slightly larger at 177 mm².

The core counts match at 4 physical cores each, but the thread counts diverge. The Xeon supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the i5 is limited to 4 threads with no simultaneous multithreading. This is the most significant architectural distinction. The Xeon's base clock is 2000 MHz with a boost clock of 3.00 GHz, while the i5 runs at a much higher 3.40 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The i5 compensates for fewer threads with substantially higher clock speeds.

Cache allocation also differs. Both share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache is 8 MB shared on the Xeon versus 6 MB shared on the i5. The Xeon's extra 2 MB of L3 helps offset its lower clocks. Memory support is DDR3 dual-channel on both, with the Xeon rated at 25.6 GB/s bandwidth; the i5's bandwidth figure is not recorded in the database.

The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, whereas the i5 simply lists Gen 3 without lane specifics. Integrated graphics are absent on the Xeon, but the i5 includes Intel HD 4600. The Xeon targets the server and workstation segment, while the i5 is aimed at desktop use. The Xeon is marked end-of-life, while the i5's production status is not recorded.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins in every measured category. The multicore tests show the Xeon ahead by 1.5% in R15, 1.6% in R20, and 1.5% in R23. These margins are small but consistent, and they reflect the Xeon's ability to use its 8 threads effectively in multithreaded rendering workloads. The single-core tests also favor the Xeon, with 1.5% in R15, 1.8% in R20, and 1.5% in R23. This is noteworthy because the i5 has significantly higher clock speeds, yet the Xeon still edges it out in single-threaded performance, likely due to the larger L3 cache.

The i5-4690 has no benchmark wins in the recorded data. Its higher clocks do not translate into any Cinebench victory. However, the practical takeaway is that the i5 is not far behind. A 1.5% deficit in multicore and roughly 1.5% in single-core means the i5 remains competitive for everyday desktop tasks. The i5 does bring integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks, so systems without a discrete GPU would favor the i5 for basic display output.

For use cases, the Xeon is the better pick for threaded workloads like rendering, encoding, or server-style multitasking where ECC memory support and 8 threads matter. The i5 is better suited for a conventional desktop build where integrated graphics are needed and where the lower thread count is acceptable. The data does not show any scenario where the i5 wins on raw compute, but its clock speed advantage keeps it within striking distance.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 | Intel Core i5-4690 |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2000 MHz | 3400 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 25 W | 84 W |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 177 mm² |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4600 |

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

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $278 | Not recorded |

The TDP difference is dramatic. The Xeon draws only 25 W, while the i5 is rated at 84 W. That makes the Xeon dramatically more power-efficient per unit of performance, which is a major consideration for always-on systems or compact builds. The i5's clock advantage is also clear: 3.40 GHz base versus 2.00 GHz, and 3.80 GHz boost versus 3.00 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon wins all benchmarks, which underscores the value of its extra threads and larger cache.

The Xeon's die is smaller at 160 mm², and it supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i5. The i5 includes Intel HD 4600 graphics, making it a self-contained desktop CPU. The Xeon requires a discrete GPU. Both are locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking. The Xeon was released on 2014-05-10, while the i5 came slightly earlier on 2014-04-30.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 scores 4827, which is 1.5% ahead of the Core i5-4690's 4754.

Q: Does the Core i5-4690 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows 6 wins for the Xeon and 0 for the i5 across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests.

Q: Can the Xeon E3-1240L v3 use ECC memory?

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

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Xeon is rated at 25 W, while the i5 is rated at 84 W. The Xeon draws significantly less power.

Q: Does the Core i5-4690 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 4600. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: How many threads does each CPU support?

A: The Xeon supports 8 threads, while the i5 supports 4 threads. Both have 4 physical cores.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 as the superior processor in raw benchmark performance. It wins all six head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score of 1396 versus 1375, and does so while consuming only 25 W against the i5's 84 W. For anyone building a low-power system, a server, or a workstation that can benefit from ECC memory and 8 threads, the Xeon is the clear choice from the recorded measurements.

The Core i5-4690 is not without merit. Its 3.80 GHz boost clock and integrated graphics make it a more self-contained desktop part. It lacks ECC support and has fewer threads, but its benchmark scores are only about 1.5% behind the Xeon across the board. For a standard desktop build where a discrete GPU is already planned and power consumption is not a priority, the i5 remains a viable option.

The database places the Xeon in the 37th percentile of all CPUs and the i5 in the 36th, confirming they are near-neighbors in overall performance. The Xeon's advantages in thread count, cache size, ECC support, and power efficiency make it the better engineering choice. The i5's higher clocks and integrated graphics make it the simpler drop-in solution for a conventional PC. Given the benchmark results, the Xeon wins on capability, and the i5 wins on convenience.