Intel Core i5-4690S vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent pattern across every Cinebench iteration: the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, though the margins are uniform rather than runaway. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 560 against the Core i5-4690S's 464, a delta of -17.1% when viewed from the i5's side. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 78 versus 65, a -16.7% gap. These are not small differences, but they are also not the kind of decisive blowout that reorders expectations.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon extends its lead slightly. The multicore result is 2336 versus 1935, a -17.2% delta, while single-core is 329 versus 273, a -17% delta. The R23 results mirror this almost exactly: multicore 5564 versus 4609 (-17.2%), single-core 785 versus 650 (-17.2%). The consistency of these deltas across all three Cinebench versions is noteworthy; it suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-specific, tied to the fundamental differences in thread count and architecture rather than any particular benchmark quirk.

The Xeon's advantage in single-core tests is particularly interesting given its much lower base clock of 2.10 GHz compared to the i5's 3.20 GHz. The boost clocks also favor the i5, at 3.90 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. Despite this clock disadvantage, the Xeon still manages to outpace the i5 in single-threaded Cinebench workloads. This points directly to the architectural efficiency of the Skylake-DT design over Haswell, where instructions per clock more than compensates for the raw frequency gap. The i5's higher clocks cannot overcome the newer microarchitecture's superior throughput per cycle.

In multicore tests, the Xeon's eight threads (versus the i5's four) provide an additional layer of advantage. With double the thread count and a newer architecture, the Xeon's 17.1% to 17.2% lead in multicore workloads is somewhat narrower than one might expect from an 8-thread part versus a 4-thread part. This suggests that the i5's higher sustained clocks are partially mitigating the thread-count deficit, but not enough to close the gap.

The average benchmark score reflects this overall picture: the Xeon E3-1240L v5 sits at 1609 in the database, while the i5-4690S sits at 1551. Both parts occupy the 39th percentile among all CPUs recorded in the database, meaning they land in similar company overall despite the Xeon's clear head-to-head wins. The nearest rivals for each part reinforce this positioning. The i5-4690S sits between the Intel Core i7-4760HQ (avg score 1549, delta 0.2%) and the Intel Core i3-9300 (avg score 1554, delta -0.2%), with the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 and AMD FX-8350 also nearby at 1557. The Xeon E3-1240L v5, meanwhile, is bracketed by the Intel Core i7-10610U (avg score 1611, delta -0.1%) and the Intel Core i3-9100E (avg score 1605, delta 0.3%).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner in raw performance terms: the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5. It wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with a consistent 16.7% to 17.2% margin across both single-core and multicore tests. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on benchmark scores should pick the Xeon. The six-to-zero win tally leaves no ambiguity.

However, the verdict is not entirely one-dimensional. The i5-4690S has its own strengths that matter in specific contexts. Its higher base and boost clocks make it a more responsive part in lightly threaded scenarios where clock speed dominates, even though the recorded Cinebench single-core scores still favor the Xeon. The i5 also comes from the desktop segment with integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, meaning a system built around it does not require a separate display adapter for basic operation. The Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

The Xeon's 25 W TDP is a massive differentiator. It draws far less power than the i5's 65 W TDP, which makes it attractive for dense server environments, always-on systems, or any deployment where thermal output and electricity consumption are primary concerns. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature the i5 lacks entirely. For workstation or server workloads where data integrity is critical, that ECC support can be a deciding factor regardless of raw benchmark scores.

The i5-4690S is the older part, released in April 2014 versus the Xeon's October 2015 launch. It uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process, while the Xeon uses Skylake-DT on 14 nm. The i5 supports only DDR3 memory, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The i5's memory bandwidth is listed at 25.6 GB/s, while the Xeon reaches 34.1 GB/s. Each of these differences reinforces the same conclusion: the Xeon is the more capable processor in nearly every measurable way, with the sole exceptions being clock speed and the presence of integrated graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins with a score of 5564, compared to the Intel Core i5-4690S's 4609, a -17.2% delta from the i5's perspective.

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

A: Yes, it features Intel HD 4600. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: What is the TDP difference between these two processors?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has a TDP of 25 W, while the Core i5-4690S has a TDP of 65 W. The Xeon draws less than half the power.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1240L v5 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory support is listed for the Xeon. The Core i5-4690S does not support ECC memory.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has an average benchmark score of 1609, and the Core i5-4690S has an average score of 1551. Both sit at the 39th percentile in the database.

Q: Which CPU supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The Core i5-4690S supports DDR3 only.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The Core i5-4690S has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 3.20 GHz for the i5 and 2.10 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 3.90 GHz for the i5 and 3.20 GHz for the Xeon. TDP is 65 W for the i5 and 25 W for the Xeon.

The socket is different: the i5 uses Intel Socket 1150, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151. This means they are not interchangeable in the same motherboard. The i5's memory support is DDR3 only, while the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4. Memory bandwidth also differs: 25.6 GB/s for the i5 versus 34.1 GB/s for the Xeon. ECC memory support is absent on the i5 and present on the Xeon.

The i5 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The market segments differ as well: the i5 is listed as Desktop, while the Xeon is listed as Server/Workstation. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i5 has no production status listed. The i5's launch MSRP is $224, and the Xeon's launch MSRP is $278. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is substantial. The Core i5-4690S is built on the Haswell architecture with a 22 nm process node, while the Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses the Skylake-DT architecture on a 14 nm process. The transistor counts reflect the process difference: the i5 packs 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die, while the Xeon packs 1,750 million transistors on a smaller 122 mm² die. This denser integration is a direct result of the newer manufacturing process.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is where they diverge: the i5 has 6 MB shared, while the Xeon has 8 MB shared. That extra 2 MB of L3 cache, combined with the newer architecture and additional threads, contributes to the Xeon's benchmark advantage.

The codenames reflect the different design lineages: Haswell for the i5, Skylake-DT for the Xeon. The generation labels in the database confirm this, listing the i5 as "Core i5 (Haswell)" and the Xeon as "Xeon E3 (Skylake-DT)". Both are manufactured by Intel, and both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon's memory support spans two generations of DDR memory, while the i5 is limited to DDR3. The Xeon also carries ECC memory support, which is absent on the i5. These architectural differences explain the benchmark results: a newer process node, a newer microarchitecture, more threads, and more L3 cache all point in the same direction.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so its strengths are straightforward to enumerate. In multithreaded workloads, the combination of 8 threads and 8 MB of L3 cache gives it a consistent edge, as seen in the 17.1% to 17.2% multicore deltas across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. In single-threaded workloads, the Skylake architecture's higher instructions-per-clock allows it to beat the i5 despite a lower clock speed, with deltas ranging from -16.7% to -17.2%. The Xeon also wins in memory bandwidth, with 34.1 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory, making it the choice for data-integrity-sensitive applications. Its 25 W TDP makes it exceptionally efficient for sustained server workloads where thermal and power budgets are tight.

The Core i5-4690S does not win any recorded benchmark, but it has contextual advantages that the data supports. Its higher base clock of 3.20 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz mean it can respond quickly to burst workloads where frequency matters, even if the recorded Cinebench scores do not reflect a win. Its integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic desktop builds, which is a meaningful convenience for office systems or media centers. Its 65 W TDP, while higher than the Xeon's, is still modest for a desktop part, and the older Haswell platform on Socket 1150 may be easier to source used components for in legacy systems. The i5 also has a lower launch MSRP of $224 compared to the Xeon's $278, though ongoing availability and pricing are not recorded in the database.

In practical terms, the choice comes down to workload. For rendering, virtualization, database serving, or any multithreaded task where ECC memory and power efficiency matter, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the clear pick based on the recorded data. For a simple desktop system where integrated graphics are needed and the motherboard platform is already Socket 1150, the Core i5-4690S remains a functional option, even though it trails in every measured benchmark. The database shows a 6-to-0 win tally for the Xeon, but the i5's specific feature set still gives it a niche in legacy desktop builds.