Intel Core i5-4690S vs Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4690S and Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 represent two divergent philosophies from the same era of Intel silicon. The i5-4690S is a mainstream desktop part built for high per-core responsiveness, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is a low-power server chip engineered for throughput and reliability. The benchmark data tells a surprisingly one-sided story: the Xeon wins every single head-to-head test, despite the i5’s higher clock speeds. This is a case where core count and thread count trump raw frequency.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the data is the uniformity of the Xeon’s victory. Across all six benchmark tests, the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 wins by exactly 13.3 percent. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15, the Xeon scores 535 points in the multicore test versus the i5-4690S’s 464 points. That 71-point gap translates to a 13.3 percent deficit for the i5. The single-core R15 result repeats the same margin: 75 points for the Xeon versus 65 points for the i5. Even in a test that should favor the i5’s 3.90 GHz boost clock, the Xeon’s 2.70 GHz ceiling still comes out ahead.

The newer Cinebench versions extend the trend. In R20, the Xeon posts 2232 multicore and 315 single-core, while the i5 manages 1935 and 273, respectively. The R23 results follow suit: 5316 versus 4609 in multicore, and 750 versus 650 in single-core. Every delta is a clean -13.3 percent from the i5’s perspective.

What makes this remarkable is the specification gap. The i5-4690S runs at a 3.20 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the Xeon is clocked far lower at 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost. Despite this 1.20 GHz disadvantage at peak boost, the Xeon’s six cores and twelve threads overwhelm the i5’s four cores and four threads. The Xeon’s larger 15 MB shared L3 cache, compared to the i5’s 6 MB, likely helps close the per-clock efficiency gap.

For context, the i5-4690S’s average benchmark score of 1551 places it at the 39th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-4760HQ, which scores 1549, a mere 0.2 percent behind. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 sits at the 38th percentile with an average score of 1537, just 0.7 percent behind the Intel Core i5-7440HQ. These two processors are effectively in the same performance tier on average, yet the Xeon wins every direct comparison by a comfortable margin.

FAQ

Q: Why does the Xeon E5-1428L v2 win every benchmark despite having a much lower clock speed?

A: The Xeon has six cores and twelve threads, while the i5-4690S has only four cores and four threads. Even though the i5 boosts to 3.90 GHz versus the Xeon’s 2.70 GHz, the additional two cores and eight threads provide enough parallel throughput to overcome the frequency deficit in every tested workload.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap the same as the multicore gap?

A: Yes. The deltaPct is exactly -13.3 percent for every test, including single-core benchmarks. The Xeon wins Cinebench R15 single-core with 75 points versus 65 points, and R23 single-core with 750 versus 650. This indicates the Xeon’s per-core efficiency is higher despite its lower clock.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon E5-1428L v2 supports triple-channel DDR3 memory with a peak bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s. The i5-4690S uses dual-channel memory with a peak bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The Xeon’s wider memory bus gives it a 6.4 GB/s advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 supports ECC memory, while the i5-4690S does not. This is a significant differentiator for server and workstation deployments where data integrity is critical.

Q: What are the production statuses of these two chips?

A: The Xeon E5-1428L v2 is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-4690S has no production status listed in the data. The Xeon was released on 2014-01-08, and the i5 followed on 2014-04-30.

Q: How do their integrated graphics compare?

A: The i5-4690S includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 has no integrated graphics at all, which is standard for server processors that rely on discrete GPUs.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel microarchitectures. The i5-4690S is built on the Haswell architecture, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 uses the Ivy Bridge-EN architecture, a server-specific variant of Ivy Bridge. Both are manufactured on Intel’s 22 nm process node, but the silicon designs diverge significantly.

The i5-4690S packs 1,400 million transistors into a 177 mm² die. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 is substantially larger, with 1,860 million transistors on a 257 mm² die. That extra silicon area accommodates the additional cores, threads, and a much larger cache hierarchy. The Xeon’s L3 cache is 15 MB shared, compared to the i5’s 6 MB shared. Both chips provide 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core.

Memory architecture differs as well. The i5-4690S uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the Xeon employs a triple-channel bus. This gives the Xeon a higher peak memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s for the i5. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the i5.

PCIe connectivity favors the Xeon. The i5-4690S provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon offers 24 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. This additional lane count suits server workloads with multiple expansion cards, network adapters, or storage controllers.

Integrated graphics are another clear split. The i5-4690S includes Intel HD 4600, enabling a fully functional desktop system without a discrete GPU. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated video card for any display output. The market segments reflect this: the i5 is classified as a desktop processor, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The i5-4690S has four cores and four threads, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 has six cores and twelve threads. Clock speeds favor the i5, with a 3.20 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, versus the Xeon’s 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost.

Thermal design power is close but not identical. The i5-4690S has a 65 W TDP, while the Xeon is rated at 60 W. This is notable given the Xeon’s larger die and additional cores, indicating a more conservative power profile.

Sockets are incompatible. The i5-4690S uses Intel Socket 1150, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 uses Intel Socket 1356. These are physically different sockets, so the processors cannot be swapped between platforms.

Cache sizes differ substantially. The Xeon’s 15 MB shared L3 cache is 2.5 times larger than the i5’s 6 MB. Per-core L1 and L2 caches are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB, respectively.

Memory support reveals the server pedigree of the Xeon. It supports triple-channel DDR3 with ECC, while the i5 supports dual-channel DDR3 without ECC. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth is 32.0 GB/s, compared to 25.6 GB/s for the i5.

PCIe lane counts also differ, with the Xeon providing 24 Gen 3 lanes versus the i5’s 16. The i5 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. Market segments are desktop versus server/workstation. The launch MSRP for the i5-4690S is $224, and for the Xeon it is $494.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 wins every benchmark test in this comparison, but that does not automatically make it the better processor for every user. The data shows it dominates in raw compute across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multicore. Its twelve threads and 15 MB L3 cache make it the stronger choice for heavily threaded workloads such as rendering, virtualization, and database processing. The triple-channel memory bus and ECC support further cement its position for server and workstation environments where reliability and memory throughput are paramount.

The Intel Core i5-4690S, despite losing all direct comparisons, holds advantages in areas the benchmarks do not measure. Its integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics mean a complete desktop system can operate without a discrete GPU, which is a significant convenience for basic office tasks or media playback. The i5 also uses the mainstream Socket 1150, which pairs with a wide range of affordable motherboards. Its higher clock speeds, while not translating to benchmark wins here, may provide snappier responsiveness in lightly threaded legacy applications that the Cinebench suite does not capture.

For a server administrator building a low-power compute node, the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is the clear choice based on this data. It offers superior multi-threaded performance, ECC memory support, and additional PCIe lanes, all within a 60 W TDP. For a desktop user who needs a simple, self-contained system without a dedicated graphics card, the i5-4690S provides integrated graphics and a more accessible platform. The benchmark results are emphatic, but the right pick depends entirely on whether the workload aligns with the Xeon’s server-oriented feature set or the i5’s desktop conveniences.