Intel Core i5-7600 vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, and by nearly identical margins. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the Xeon leads the Core i5-7600 by a delta of roughly 10.2% to 10.3%. There is no test where the Core i5 pulls ahead, and the margin is almost perfectly uniform, suggesting a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15, the Xeon scores 627 in multi-core against the Core i5's 563, a delta of -10.2% from the Core i5's perspective. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: Xeon at 88 versus Core i5 at 79, again a -10.2% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 2616 multi-core and 369 single-core, while the Core i5 manages 2348 and 331 respectively. The multi-core delta is -10.2%, and the single-core delta is -10.3%. In Cinebench R23, the Xeon reaches 6230 multi-core and 879 single-core, compared to the Core i5's 5591 and 789, with deltas of -10.3% and -10.2% respectively.

What is striking is the consistency of the gap. A 10% advantage in every test, regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, indicates that the Xeon's advantage is not tied to its extra threads alone. The single-core tests show the same margin as the multi-core tests, which points to a per-core clock-for-clock performance lead or a memory subsystem advantage that benefits both single and multi-threaded execution. The Core i5's higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.80 GHz does not translate into a single-core win; the Xeon still beats it by 10.2% in R15 single-core, 10.3% in R20 single-core, and 10.2% in R23 single-core.

The average benchmark score in the database further contextualizes these results. The Core i5-7600 has an average score of 1844 across all recorded tests, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 has an average of 1802. Interestingly, the Core i5 has a slightly higher average score, despite losing all head-to-head Cinebench tests. This discrepancy is explained by the benchmark sets: the Core i5 includes Geekbench scores (3704 multi-core, 1344 single-core) in its average, whereas the Xeon's average is based only on Cinebench results. The Geekbench numbers are not part of the head-to-head comparison, so they do not affect the win tally.

Both processors sit at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall standing despite the Xeon's consistent win margin in these specific tests. The Core i5's nearest rivals, by average score, are the Intel Core i7-8706G (1842, delta 0.1%), AMD Athlon Gold PRO 3150G (1836, delta 0.5%), AMD Ryzen 5 4600U (1832, delta 0.7%), and Intel Core i5-8305G (1831, delta 0.7%). The Xeon's nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-9100 (1806, delta -0.2%), Intel Core i3-9320 (1808, delta -0.4%), AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (1810, delta -0.4%), and AMD Opteron 6281 (1789, delta 0.7%). These rival lists show that the Core i5 sits in a slightly higher average-score neighborhood, but the head-to-head Cinebench data gives the Xeon a clean sweep.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and serve different design goals. The Core i5-7600 is built on the Kaby Lake architecture, specifically the Core i5 (Kaby Lake) generation, using a 14 nm process node. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 is a Broadwell-EP part, from the Xeon E5 (Broadwell-EP) generation, also on a 14 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, so the process node is identical, but the underlying microarchitecture differs significantly: Kaby Lake is a mainstream desktop design, while Broadwell-EP is a server and workstation class design.

Core counts are the same at 4 physical cores, but the threading differs. The Core i5 has 4 threads total (no Hyper-Threading), while the Xeon has 8 threads (with Hyper-Threading). This doubling of threads is a key structural difference, though it is not the sole explanation for the Xeon's consistent 10% lead in both single and multi-core tests. Cache hierarchies also differ: the Core i5 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes, but its shared L3 cache is 10 MB, a 67% larger pool. This larger cache can hold more working set data, which likely contributes to its performance edge even in single-threaded tests.

The Xeon also comes with far more substantial platform features. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, whereas the Core i5 uses Intel Socket 1151. Memory support differs: both support DDR4, but the Core i5 has a dual-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon has a quad-channel bus with 76.8 GB/s, exactly double the bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, whereas the Core i5 does not. PCIe lane counts are another major divergence: the Core i5 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), more than double the connectivity for expansion devices.

The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i5 includes an HD 630 iGPU. This means the Core i5 can run a display without a discrete graphics card, while the Xeon requires one. The Xeon's transistor count is listed at 3,400 million and its die size at 246 mm², while the Core i5's transistor count and die size are not recorded in the database. The Xeon's TDP is 140 watts, versus 65 watts for the Core i5, reflecting the larger cache, memory controllers, and PCIe infrastructure.

Production status also differs: the Core i5 is listed as Active, while the Xeon is End-of-life. Release dates are close, with the Core i5 released in January 2017 and the Xeon in June 2016. The Xeon has a recorded launch MSRP of $294; the Core i5's launch MSRP is not recorded. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports unlocked overclocking. Part numbers are SR334 for the Core i5 and SR2P6 for the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmarks, the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins in every measured Cinebench scenario, both single-core and multi-core, across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23). The margin is consistently around 10.2% to 10.3%. This makes the Xeon the clear choice for any workload that is represented by Cinebench: rendering, 3D modeling, and other CPU-bound creative tasks. The Xeon's 8 threads and 10 MB L3 cache, combined with quad-channel memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, give it a structural advantage in sustained multi-threaded rendering, and the single-core advantage suggests it even wins in lightly threaded scenarios, likely due to the larger cache and memory subsystem.

The Core i5-7600, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still has a higher average benchmark score (1844) than the Xeon (1802) because the database includes Geekbench scores for the Core i5 that are not listed for the Xeon. In the Geekbench tests, the Core i5 records 3704 multi-core and 1344 single-core. These scores are not part of the head-to-head comparison, but they indicate that the Core i5 is competitive in a broader range of workloads. However, with zero wins in the head-to-head benchmark set, the Core i5's advantage appears to be limited to tests not included in the direct comparison.

For users who prioritize integrated graphics, the Core i5 is the only option here, as it includes HD 630 graphics while the Xeon has none. This makes the Core i5 suitable for a build without a discrete GPU. For users who need ECC memory support, the Xeon is the only choice, as the Core i5 does not support ECC. The Xeon also offers quad-channel memory and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, making it more suitable for workstation-class expansion, such as multiple GPUs or high-bandwidth storage controllers.

The Core i5's lower TDP of 65 watts versus 140 watts means it will generate less heat and may be easier to cool, though the database does not record cooling requirements. The Xeon's end-of-life status may matter for procurement, while the Core i5 remains active. The Xeon's larger L3 cache (10 MB vs 6 MB) and higher thread count (8 vs 4) are the most likely drivers of its benchmark sweep.

FAQ

Q: Which processor won the head-to-head benchmark comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 won all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a delta of -10.2% to -10.3% against the Core i5-7600 in each test.

Q: Does the Core i5-7600 beat the Xeon in any benchmark?

A: No. The Core i5-7600 records zero wins in the head-to-head benchmark set. However, it has a higher average benchmark score (1844) than the Xeon (1802) because the database includes Geekbench scores for the Core i5 that are not included for the Xeon.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of each processor?

A: Both have 4 physical cores. The Core i5-7600 has 4 threads, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 has 8 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-7600 does not.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core i5-7600 includes HD 630 integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Core i5-7600 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i5-7600 has a boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the Xeon E5-1620 v4 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon still wins all single-core benchmark tests.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-7600 | Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 |

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

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 watts | 140 watts |

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

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Broadwell-EP |

| Codename | Kaby Lake | Broadwell-EP |

| Generation | Core i5 (Kaby Lake) | Xeon E5 (Broadwell-EP) |

| Transistors | Not recorded | 3,400 million |

| Die Size | Not recorded | 246 mm² |

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

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 76.8 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated Graphics | HD 630 | None |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2017-01-02 | 2016-06-19 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $294 |

| Part Number | SR334 | SR2P6 |

Both processors share the same base clock (3.50 GHz), process node (14 nm), foundry (Intel), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), memory type (DDR4), market segment (Desktop), manufacturer (Intel), and locked multiplier status.