Intel Core i5-5675C vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the clear winner in every recorded benchmark. Across all six head-to-head tests, the Xeon outperforms the Core i5-5675C by roughly 21% each time. This is not a close contest; the Xeon is simply faster in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads.

The Core i5-5675C, however, targets a different use case entirely. It is a 65W desktop part with integrated Iris Pro Graphics 6200, meaning it suits compact or quiet builds where a separate graphics card is not required. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics, draws 140W, and requires a discrete GPU. It also uses the LGA 2011-3 platform with quad-channel DDR4 memory and ECC support, which points toward workstation-class duties.

Pick the Xeon E5-1620 v4 if you need raw compute throughput, memory bandwidth, or ECC reliability. Pick the Core i5-5675C if you need a low-power, socket 1150 chip with built-in graphics and an unlocked multiplier. The data shows the Xeon is faster, but the i5 has platform advantages that matter in specific builds.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 6230 versus 4912 for the i5-5675C, a 21.2% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 627 versus 495, a 21.1% lead.

Q: Which CPU is faster in single-core workloads?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 also leads every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 879 versus 693, a 21.2% gap. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 88 versus 69, a 21.6% delta. The i5 never wins a single benchmark in the head-to-head set.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-5675C does not, as its memory support field lists ECC as false.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Core i5-5675C supports DDR3 over a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports DDR4 over a quad-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Core i5-5675C have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Pro Graphics 6200. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate graphics adapter.

Q: Which CPU has an unlocked multiplier?

A: The Core i5-5675C has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 does not.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has an average benchmark score of 1802, placing it in the 42nd percentile of all CPUs. The Core i5-5675C has an average score of 1759, placing it in the 41st percentile. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-9100 at 1806 (0.2% ahead) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810 (0.4% ahead). The i5's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 at 1756 (0.2% behind) and the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE at 1766 (0.4% behind).

Architecture Differences

Both processors use Intel's 14 nm process node and the Broadwell microarchitecture, but they belong to different product lines. The Core i5-5675C is a Broadwell desktop part with a die size of 182 mm². The Xeon E5-1620 v4 is a Broadwell-EP part with a die size of 246 mm² and 3,400 million transistors.

The cache hierarchy differs notably. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i5-5675C has 4 MB of shared L3 while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3. That larger L3 cache likely contributes to the Xeon's consistent 21% benchmark advantage.

The Xeon supports ECC memory and uses a quad-channel DDR4 memory controller with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i5 uses a dual-channel DDR3 controller with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes, while the i5 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The i5 includes Iris Pro Graphics 6200, making it a self-contained solution for systems without a discrete GPU. The Xeon has no integrated graphics. The i5 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon is locked.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the two parts:

• Cores: Both have 4 cores, but the Xeon has 8 threads versus 4 for the i5.
• Base clock: 3.50 GHz on the Xeon versus 3.10 GHz on the i5.
• Boost clock: 3.80 GHz on the Xeon versus 3.60 GHz on the i5.
• TDP: 140W on the Xeon versus 65W on the i5.
• Socket: LGA 2011-3 on the Xeon versus LGA 1150 on the i5.
• Codename: Broadwell-EP on the Xeon versus Broadwell on the i5.
• Transistors: 3,400 million on the Xeon versus not listed for the i5.
• Die size: 246 mm² on the Xeon versus 182 mm² on the i5.
• L3 cache: 10 MB shared on the Xeon versus 4 MB shared on the i5.
• Memory support: DDR4 on the Xeon versus DDR3 on the i5.
• Memory bus: quad-channel on the Xeon versus dual-channel on the i5.
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s on the Xeon versus 25.6 GB/s on the i5.
• ECC memory: supported on the Xeon, not on the i5.
• PCIe lanes: 40 on the Xeon versus 16 on the i5.
• Integrated graphics: none on the Xeon versus Iris Pro Graphics 6200 on the i5.
• Production status: end-of-life on the Xeon versus active on the i5.
• Release date: June 2016 for the Xeon versus May 2015 for the i5.
• Multiplier unlocked: false on the Xeon versus true on the i5.
• Launch MSRP: $294 on the Xeon versus $276 on the i5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark set contains six tests: three Cinebench versions, each with single-core and multi-core runs. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins all six outright.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 627 against 495 for the i5, a delta of 21.1%. In R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 88 against 69, a 21.6% gap. The R20 tests show the same pattern: multi-core is 2616 versus 2063, single-core is 369 versus 291, both at 21.1% deltas. In R23, multi-core is 6230 versus 4912 and single-core is 879 versus 693, both at 21.2% deltas.

The consistency of the margin across every test is striking. Every single-core and multi-core result falls within a narrow band from 21.1% to 21.6%. This suggests the Xeon's advantage is not workload-dependent in the traditional sense; the performance gap is structural, driven by higher clocks, twice the threads, and a much larger L3 cache.

Geekbench results are not part of the head-to-head set, but the database lists separate scores: the i5 reaches 4159 multi-core and 1388 single-core on Geekbench, while the Xeon has no Geekbench entries in the recorded data. The average benchmark score favors the Xeon at 1802 versus 1759.

Nearest rival data reinforces the standings. The i5's closest rivals are the Xeon E3-1241 v3 at 1756 and the i7-4790T at 1755, both within 0.2% behind. The Xeon's closest rivals are the Core i3-9100 at 1806 and Core i3-9320 at 1808, within 0.2% to 0.4% ahead. The Xeon sits just below the Core i3-9100 in the average score, and the i5 sits just above the Xeon E3-1241 v3. Both chips occupy a similar overall percentile tier: 42nd percentile for the Xeon, 41st percentile for the i5.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split must account for platform features rather than raw scores.

Choose the Xeon E5-1620 v4 for compute-heavy tasks that benefit from its quad-channel DDR4 memory, 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, and 10 MB L3. Its 8 threads give it a clear lead in any multi-threaded rendering workload, as the R15, R20, and R23 results show. The 21.2% multi-core advantage in Cinebench makes it the deciding factor for productivity or server-style workloads. ECC memory support makes the Xeon the only one of the pair suitable for memory-error-sensitive environments. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes fit workstations with multiple high-bandwidth devices. There is no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory.

Choose the Core i5-5635C for low-power builds where the 65W TDP matters more than peak performance. Its integrated Iris Pro Graphics 6200 removes the need for a graphics card entirely. The unlocked multiplier allows overclocking on a socket 1150 board, which can narrow the performance gap in some workloads, though the recorded benchmarks show it loses every head-to-head test by about 21%. The DDR3 dual-channel memory controller and 16 PCIe lanes suffice for everyday computing tasks. The active production status also favors the i5, as the Xeon is listed as end-of-life.

In short, the Xeon is the faster processor in every measurable way, and the i5 is the more versatile and flexible one for compact, quiet, or integrated systems.