Intel Core i5-6600 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-6600 has an average benchmark score of 1744, compared to the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3's average of 1709. Despite this, the Xeon wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap in the head-to-head results?

A: The largest recorded difference is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon E5-1620 v3 leads by 13.1%. The smallest gap is 12.6%, seen in Cinebench R15 multi-core.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-6600 does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes available?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Intel Core i5-6600 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only).

Q: What is the difference in thread count?

A: The Intel Core i5-6600 has 4 threads total (4 cores, no hyperthreading). The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has 8 threads total (4 cores with hyperthreading).

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i5-6600 boosts to 3.90 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 boosts to 3.60 GHz. However, the Xeon has a higher base clock at 3.50 GHz versus 3.30 GHz for the i5.

Where Each One Wins

The data paints a one-sided picture in terms of raw benchmark victories: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests recorded in the database. This includes every multi-core and single-core Cinebench variant (R15, R20, and R23). The consistency of the margin, ranging from 12.6% to 13.1%, suggests the Xeon's advantage is structural rather than workload-specific.

However, the Intel Core i5-6600 claims a different kind of victory in the aggregate statistics. Its average benchmark score of 1744 edges out the Xeon's 1709, and it sits at the 41st percentile among all CPUs versus the Xeon's 40th percentile. This discrepancy between head-to-head results and average scores indicates that the i5-6600 performs relatively better across a broader range of tests outside the Cinebench suite, while the Xeon dominates specifically in the Cinebench workloads captured here.

For scenarios involving memory bandwidth, the Xeon is the clear choice based on the specification data: it offers quad-channel DDR4 support with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5-6600 provides dual-channel support at 34.1 GB/s. For systems requiring ECC memory, only the Xeon qualifies. For integrated graphics, the i5-6600 includes UHD Graphics 530, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, meaning the i5 wins in any use case that needs a display output without a discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing nodes. The Intel Core i5-6600 is built on Skylake using a 14 nm process, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses Haswell-EP on a 22 nm process. This explains the dramatic difference in die size and transistor count: the Xeon's die measures 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors, while the i5-6600's die is 177 mm² with no transistor count recorded in the database.

Cache organization differs substantially. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is 6 MB on the i5-6600 versus 10 MB on the Xeon E5-1620 v3. The larger L3 cache on the Xeon likely contributes to its consistent benchmark advantage, particularly in multi-threaded workloads where more shared data can reside closer to the cores.

Memory architecture is another fundamental divergence. The i5-6600 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration, while the Xeon supports only DDR4 but in a quad-channel configuration. The Xeon's memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s is exactly double the i5-6600's 34.1 GB/s, a significant advantage for memory-intensive server and workstation workloads.

The platform sockets also differ: the i5-6600 uses Intel Socket 1151, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3. This means they are not interchangeable in any motherboard. Additionally, the Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the i5-6600, and offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes compared to the i5-6600's 16 lanes.

Specification Differences

The table below highlights only the fields where the two processors differ according to the recorded data:

| Specification | Intel Core i5-6600 | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 |

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

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 140 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Haswell |

| Codename | Skylake | Haswell-EP |

| Generation | Core i5 (Skylake) | Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 177 mm² | 356 mm² |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 2,600 million |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 68.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe Lanes | 16 (Gen 3, CPU only) | 40 (Gen 3, CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 530 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2015-06-30 | 2014-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $224 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SR2BWSR2L5 | QGZYSR20P |

Both processors share the same core count (4), L1 and L2 cache sizes per core, Intel as the manufacturer and foundry, and both are end-of-life production status with locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i5-6600. The margins are remarkably uniform across all six tests.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 595 against the i5-6600's 520, a 12.6% advantage. The single-core variant shows a slightly larger gap: 84 versus 73, or 13.1% in favor of the Xeon. This single-core result is notable because the i5-6600 has a higher boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.60 GHz), yet the Xeon still wins by a wider margin than in the multi-core tests.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern. The Xeon leads in multi-core with 2482 versus 2167 (12.7% difference) and in single-core with 350 versus 305 (12.9% difference). The consistency across these two variants suggests the Xeon's architectural advantages, including its larger L3 cache and quad-channel memory interface, offset the i5-6600's clock speed and newer manufacturing node.

Cinebench R23, the most recent test in the database, shows the Xeon at 5910 versus 5161 in multi-core, again a 12.7% gap. In single-core, the Xeon scores 834 against 728, maintaining the 12.7% margin. The uniformity of these deltas, all clustered between 12.6% and 13.1%, indicates a stable performance differential that does not vary significantly with workload type or Cinebench version.

The i5-6600 does appear in the Geekbench tests in the benchmark data (multi-core 3755, single-core 1239), but the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench scores recorded, so no direct comparison is possible for that suite.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 outperforms the Intel Core i5-6600 in every head-to-head Cinebench test, with margins between 12.6% and 13.1%. The Xeon's 8 threads versus 4 threads, larger 10 MB L3 cache, quad-channel memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, and ECC support make it the superior choice for multi-threaded workstation and server workloads. Its 40 PCIe lanes also enable more expansion options for professional applications.

The Intel Core i5-6600, however, holds its own in the aggregate statistics with a higher average benchmark score (1744 versus 1709) and a slightly better percentile ranking (41st versus 40th). Its 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 140 W, making it a far more power-efficient option for desktop builds. The inclusion of UHD Graphics 530 means it requires no discrete GPU for basic display output, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

Users building a dedicated workstation with ECC memory requirements, high memory bandwidth needs, or extensive PCIe expansion should choose the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3. Users prioritizing power efficiency, integrated graphics, or a more recent 14 nm architecture for a standard desktop system should select the Intel Core i5-6600. For pure Cinebench performance, the Xeon is the clear winner in all recorded tests.