Intel Core i5-4690K vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the Intel Core i5-4690K are two Haswell-era processors that landed in the database with nearly identical average benchmark scores, yet the recorded head-to-head results tell a more one-sided story. Both chips sit at the 40th percentile against all CPUs in the database, and their overall averages differ by less than two percent, with the Xeon at 1709 and the Core i5 at 1682. Digging into the individual tests, however, the Xeon sweeps every single benchmark. That tension between near-equal averages and a clean six-to-zero rout is worth unpacking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded Cinebench results are remarkably consistent: the Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins every test by a margin between roughly 22 and 24 percent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 595 against the i5-4690K's 486, a gap of 22.4 percent. The single-core version of the same test shows 84 versus 68, a 23.5 percent lead, which is the largest advantage in the entire set.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core comes in at 2482 for the Xeon and 2027 for the Core i5, again a 22.4 percent difference. Single-core reads 350 against 286, also 22.4 percent apart.

Cinebench R23, the most demanding of the three render tests, keeps the story intact: 5910 versus 4828 in multi-core and 834 versus 681 in single-core, differences of 22.4 and 22.5 percent respectively.

What is curious here is the uniformity. A multi-core lead of 22.4 percent is easy enough to explain: the Xeon carries 8 threads to the i5's 4, so threaded rendering workloads have twice the logical resources to schedule across. But the single-core gap of over 23 percent is harder to attribute to threading alone, since a single-threaded render pass should favor whichever chip clocks higher. The i5-4690K actually boosts to 3.90 GHz against the Xeon's 3.60 GHz. The database suggests the explanation lies elsewhere: the Xeon pairs its cores with 10 MB of shared L3 cache and quad-channel DDR4 memory delivering 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i5 makes do with 6 MB of L3 and dual-channel DDR3 at 25.6 GB/s. In single-threaded rendering, cache and memory subsystems can matter as much as peak frequency, and the data appears to bear that out.

The i5-4690K does hold Geekbench results in the database, 3789 multi-core and 1292 single-core, but the Xeon has no recorded Geekbench scores, so no direct comparison is possible there. That absence is itself informative: the recorded data covers rendering workloads only for the head-to-head, and the conclusions below should be read with that scope in mind.

Context from the rivals list reinforces how evenly matched these two are in aggregate. The Xeon's average of 1709 places it alongside the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 (identical average score), the Intel Core i7-990X (0.2 percent ahead of it), the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U, and the Intel Core i7-4910MQ, both marginally ahead. The i5-4690K's 1682 puts it near the Intel Xeon D-1528 (which it edges by 0.3 percent), the Intel Core i7-5850HQ, the Intel Core i7-3770K, and the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H, all clustered within half a percent. In other words, both chips occupy the same neighborhood of the historical performance ladder, but within that neighborhood the Xeon is the faster part in every measured test.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all six recorded head-to-head benchmarks, beating the Core i5-4690K by 22.4 to 23.5 percent in every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test, both multi-core and single-core.

Q: Both chips have 4 cores, so why does the Xeon win multi-core tests?

A: The Xeon supports 8 threads through hyper-threading while the i5-4690K runs 4 threads on 4 cores. Combined with quad-channel memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s, threaded workloads have substantially more headroom on the Xeon.

Q: Does the i5-4690K win anything?

A: Not in the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, where it loses all six tests. Its advantages appear elsewhere in the specification data: a higher 3.90 GHz boost clock, an unlocked multiplier, integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, and a lower 88 W TDP versus the Xeon's 140 W.

Q: Can both CPUs be overclocked?

A: Only the Core i5-4690K. Its multiplier is unlocked. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has a locked multiplier.

Q: Do these CPUs use the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the i5-4690K uses Intel Socket 1150. They are not interchangeable on the same board.

Q: Which memory types do they support?

A: The Xeon supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with ECC support. The i5 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus without ECC.

Architecture Differences

At first glance these are close siblings. Both are Intel Haswell designs fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process, both launched in 2014 (the i5-4690K in June, the Xeon in September), and both are now end-of-life parts. Both carry identical per-core cache structures: 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core.

The divergence starts with the platform each was built for. The Xeon is a Haswell-EP die targeted at the Server/Workstation segment, and its silicon reflects that: 2,600 million transistors spread across a 356 mm² die. The i5 is a desktop Haswell part with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, less than half the area. That extra silicon in the Xeon buys the larger 10 MB shared L3 cache (versus 6 MB), the quad-channel DDR4 memory controller, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU alone, compared with 16 lanes on the i5. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a workstation staple, while the i5 does not.

One notable asymmetry: the i5-4690K includes integrated graphics, Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon has no integrated GPU listed at all. For a workstation part paired with discrete graphics that is expected, but it means the i5 can run a display without a graphics card and the Xeon, on the recorded data, cannot.

Threading is the final architectural split: 4 cores and 8 threads on the Xeon against 4 cores and 4 threads on the i5.

Specification Differences

The two chips share a 3.50 GHz base clock, 4 cores, the 22 nm node, and the Haswell architecture. Where they differ:

• Threads: 8 on the Xeon versus 4 on the i5-4690K.
• Boost clock: 3.60 GHz on the Xeon versus 3.90 GHz on the i5.
• TDP: 140 W on the Xeon versus 88 W on the i5.
• Socket: Intel Socket 2011-3 versus Intel Socket 1150.
• L3 cache: 10 MB shared versus 6 MB shared.
• Memory: DDR4 quad-channel at 68.3 GB/s with ECC versus DDR3 dual-channel at 25.6 GB/s without ECC.
• PCIe: Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes versus Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes.
• Integrated graphics: none on the Xeon versus Intel HD 4600 on the i5.
• Multiplier: locked on the Xeon, unlocked on the i5.
• Die and transistors: 356 mm² and 2,600 million versus 177 mm² and 1,400 million.
• Segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop.
• Launch MSRP: recorded only for the i5-4690K, at $243; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Xeon.

The Verdict

Judged strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is the faster processor, and not by a small amount. It wins every measured test by more than 22 percent, including the single-core runs where the i5's higher boost clock might have been expected to compete. Workstation users running rendering workloads, or anyone needing ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or the additional PCIe lanes, get a clearly stronger part in the Xeon.

The i5-4690K's case rests entirely on its specification profile rather than its measured scores. Its 88 W TDP is far easier to cool and feed than the Xeon's 140 W, its unlocked multiplier offers tuning flexibility the locked Xeon cannot match, its 3.90 GHz boost is the highest clock in this pairing, and its integrated HD 4600 graphics remove the need for a discrete GPU in basic builds. The $243 launch MSRP is recorded for the i5; no comparable figure exists for the Xeon, so no cost comparison is possible from the data.

Both processors are end-of-life, both sit at the 40th percentile of the database, and both are Haswell on 22 nm. The choice reduces to this: maximum measured performance and platform bandwidth with the Xeon, or efficiency, flexibility, and self-contained graphics with the i5.

Where Each One Wins

Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins:

• Multi-threaded rendering: Cinebench R15 (595 vs 486), R20 (2482 vs 2027), and R23 (5910 vs 4828), all roughly 22 percent ahead, thanks to 8 threads and abundant memory bandwidth.
• Single-threaded rendering: R15 (84 vs 68), R20 (350 vs 286), and R23 (834 vs 681), suggesting the larger cache and memory subsystem outweigh the i5's clock advantage in these tests.
• Memory-heavy and expandable workloads: 68.3 GB/s of quad-channel DDR4 and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.
• Reliability-critical setups: ECC memory support.

Core i5-4690K wins:

• Power-sensitive builds: an 88 W TDP versus 140 W.
• Enthusiast tuning: an unlocked multiplier.
• Builds without discrete graphics: integrated Intel HD 4600.
• Clock-sensitive tasks outside the recorded tests: a 3.90 GHz boost, the highest in this pairing, though the recorded single-core data does not show it translating into wins.

The final tally in the database reads six wins for the Xeon and zero for the i5. Yet the specification data cautions against calling it a rout: the i5 offers capabilities the Xeon simply lacks, and for the right build those may matter more than any rendering score.