Intel Core i7-4790S vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 and the Intel Core i7-4790S are both 4-core, 8-thread desktop processors, but they target fundamentally different platforms and priorities. The data shows the Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, yet the two chips sit at the exact same performance percentile (42nd) and have nearly identical average benchmark scores (1802 vs 1827). This suggests the Xeon’s wins are consistent but modest, while the i7-4790S offers a different set of trade-offs that the raw Cinebench scores do not capture.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate a clear, but narrow, performance victory for the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Xeon wins with a consistent 5.4% margin in multi-core and single-core runs, except for the R15 single-core test where it leads by 4.8%. The largest absolute gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 6230 against the i7-4790S’s 5911. If the decision rests purely on Cinebench rendering performance, the Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the superior choice.

However, the data reveals a more complex picture. The i7-4790S has a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.80 GHz), a much lower TDP (65W vs 140W), and includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Xeon counters with a larger L3 cache (10 MB vs 8 MB), quad-channel DDR4 memory support (compared to dual-channel DDR3), and ECC memory capability. The Xeon also supports 40 PCIe lanes versus 16 on the i7. The i7-4790S is the better pick for a low-power, all-in-one desktop build where integrated graphics and a common LGA 1150 socket matter. The Xeon is the pick for a workstation that needs ECC memory, higher memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes, accepting a much higher power draw.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins every multi-core test. It scores 627 in Cinebench R15, 2616 in R20, and 6230 in R23, versus the i7-4790S’s 595, 2482, and 5911 respectively. The Xeon’s margin is a consistent 5.4% across these three tests.

Q: Does the Core i7-4790S have any performance advantage?

A: No. In the six head-to-head benchmarks provided, the i7-4790S wins zero tests. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins all six, including single-core tests, despite the i7 having a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz compared to 3.80 GHz.

Q: Can the Xeon E5-1620 v4 use the same memory as the Core i7-4790S?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, providing 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth. The Core i7-4790S supports DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus, providing 25.6 GB/s. They are not interchangeable.

Q: Which processor is more suitable for a system requiring error correction?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the only one of the two that supports ECC memory (true). The Core i7-4790S does not support ECC (false). This makes the Xeon the appropriate choice for data-integrity-critical workloads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has an average benchmark score of 1802, while the Core i7-4790S has a slightly higher average of 1827. Despite this, both processors occupy the 42nd percentile of all CPUs in the database. The i7’s higher average is influenced by its inclusion of Geekbench scores (3307 multi-core, 1056 single-core), which are not listed for the Xeon.

Q: What is the difference in their power requirements?

A: The Core i7-4790S has a TDP of 65W, which is less than half of the Xeon E5-1620 v4’s 140W TDP. This significant difference makes the i7 far more suitable for compact or energy-conscious builds.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and are built for different sockets. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 is based on the Broadwell-EP architecture, specifically the Broadwell-EP codename, and fits into the Intel Socket 2011-3. It is manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process node, packing 3,400 million transistors onto a 246 mm² die. In contrast, the Intel Core i7-4790S uses the older Haswell architecture, fits into the Intel Socket 1150, and is built on a 22 nm process, with 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The process node difference explains the Xeon’s higher transistor count in a larger die.

The memory architectures differ fundamentally. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus, yielding a theoretical memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core i7-4790S supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus, yielding 25.6 GB/s. This gives the Xeon a threefold advantage in memory bandwidth on paper. Additionally, the Xeon supports ECC memory (true), while the i7 does not (false). The PCIe lane count also differs significantly: the Xeon provides 40 CPU-only PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the i7 provides only 16. The i7 includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

Cache hierarchies are similar in L1 and L2 per-core sizes (64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively), but the shared L3 cache differs: the Xeon has 10 MB, while the i7 has 8 MB. The Xeon’s larger L3 and vastly higher memory bandwidth are likely contributors to its consistent benchmark lead.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet shows a clear divergence in platform positioning. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Core i7-4790S has a lower base clock of 3.20 GHz but a higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz. Despite the i7’s higher peak frequency, the Xeon still wins single-core tests, indicating architectural efficiency or cache advantages matter more.

The TDP difference is stark: 140W for the Xeon versus 65W for the i7. This is a defining characteristic, as the i7 is clearly a low-power variant (the “S” suffix). The Xeon uses a 3,400 million transistor design on a 246 mm² die, while the i7 uses 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. Memory support is exclusive to each: DDR4 quad-channel (76.8 GB/s) for the Xeon, DDR3 dual-channel (25.6 GB/s) for the i7. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. The i7 has integrated graphics; the Xeon does not. The Xeon offers 40 PCIe lanes versus 16 on the i7. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers, and their launch MSRPs are $294 for the Xeon and $312 for the i7.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins all six benchmarks. The most consistent margin is 5.4%, appearing in Cinebench R15 multi-core (627 vs 595), R20 multi-core (2616 vs 2482), R20 single-core (369 vs 350), R23 multi-core (6230 vs 5911), and R23 single-core (879 vs 834). The only outlier is Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon wins by a slightly smaller 4.8% (88 vs 84).

These margins are uniform across both single-core and multi-core workloads, which is notable. The i7-4790S’s higher boost clock (4.00 GHz vs 3.80 GHz) does not prevent the Xeon from leading in single-threaded tests. This suggests that the Xeon’s Broadwell architecture, larger 10 MB L3 cache, and access to quad-channel DDR4 memory provide a per-thread efficiency advantage that offsets the clock speed deficit. The 5.4% multi-core margin is exactly mirrored in the single-core tests, implying the performance gap is not due to core scaling but rather a fundamental per-core throughput advantage for the Xeon.

The i7-4790S does have additional Geekbench scores in its profile (3307 multi-core, 1056 single-core) that are not provided for the Xeon, which contributes to its higher average benchmark score of 1827 versus the Xeon’s 1802. However, in the direct Cinebench comparison, the Xeon is ahead in every instance.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins in every measured benchmark category. It is the superior choice for any workload that relies on raw Cinebench rendering performance, be it single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its advantages extend beyond compute to platform features: it supports ECC memory, offers quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s of bandwidth, and provides 40 PCIe lanes. This makes it the clear pick for a workstation or server-oriented build that requires high memory throughput, data integrity through ECC, and extensive expansion capabilities. The data implies that if you need maximum benchmark scores and platform robustness, the Xeon is the only choice.

The Core i7-4790S wins in the unmeasured categories of power efficiency and platform simplicity. Its 65W TDP is less than half the Xeon’s 140W, making it dramatically more efficient for the same 4-core/8-thread configuration. It includes integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. Its lower average benchmark score (1827 vs 1802) is actually higher than the Xeon’s, though this is due to the Geekbench results. The i7 is the sensible pick for a low-power desktop, home theater PC, or general-purpose machine where the Xeon’s workstation features are unnecessary and the power draw is a liability. The i7’s higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz also suggests it may have better burst performance in short, lightly-threaded tasks, even if the Cinebench data does not reflect this. The choice is clear: the Xeon for maximum performance and workstation features, the i7 for efficiency and integrated graphics.