Intel Core i7-4790S vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-4790S boosts to 4.00 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 tops out at 3.80 GHz. Despite the i7’s higher boost, the Xeon wins every single-core benchmark in the head-to-head data.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1630 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes. The Xeon E5-1630 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-4790S does not. This makes the Xeon the only option here for workloads that require error-correcting memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v3 offers 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth via quad-channel DDR4, whereas the Core i7-4790S delivers 25.6 GB/s through dual-channel DDR3. The Xeon’s bandwidth is nearly 2.7 times higher.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i7-4790S has an average benchmark score of 1827, and the Xeon E5-1630 v3 scores 1823. That is a 0.2% difference in favor of the i7, placing both at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i7-4790S has 8 MB. Both use 22 nm process nodes and 64 KB L1 plus 256 KB L2 per core.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both are end-of-life. The Core i7-4790S launched on May 10, 2014, while the Xeon E5-1630 v3 launched on September 7, 2014.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on Intel’s 22 nm Haswell architecture, but they are distinct variants. The Core i7-4790S is a desktop Haswell part, codenamed simply “Haswell,” while the Xeon E5-1630 v3 uses the Haswell-EP codename, indicating a server/workstation lineage. That lineage shows up in physical and platform traits. The i7 packs 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die; the Xeon has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. Both are 4-core, 8-thread parts, but the Xeon’s larger die and transistor count hint at additional server-focused infrastructure.

The memory subsystems diverge sharply. The i7-4790S supports dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon E5-1630 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s. The Xeon also enables ECC memory, which the i7 lacks. The PCIe connectivity differs too: the i7 provides 16 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), whereas the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes. That is a major expansion in I/O headroom for the Xeon.

The integrated GPU is another clear split. The Core i7-4790S includes Intel HD 4600 graphics; the Xeon E5-1630 v3 has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the i7 a self-contained desktop solution, while the Xeon requires a discrete GPU. The sockets are incompatible: the i7 uses Intel Socket 1150, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3.

Thermal and clock profiles also differ. The i7-4790S has a 65 W TDP, a 3.20 GHz base clock, and a 4.00 GHz boost. The Xeon E5-1630 v3 has a 140 W TDP, a 3.70 GHz base clock, and a 3.80 GHz boost. The Xeon runs a higher base frequency but a lower boost, and it draws more than twice the power budget.

The launch dates are close—May 2014 for the i7 and September 2014 for the Xeon—but the market segments are not. The i7 is a desktop part; the Xeon is a server/workstation part. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous in raw compute: the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. Its smallest single-core win is 5.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core (89 vs. 84), and its multicore margins are consistently around 6.2–6.3% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. If the sole criterion is peak CPU throughput, the Xeon is the pick.

But the i7-4790S is far from useless. It carries an integrated GPU, which the Xeon lacks entirely, and it fits in the lower-power desktop ecosystem with a 65 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 140 W. For a compact desktop build that needs no discrete graphics, the i7 is the only one of the two that works out of the box. The i7 also has a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz vs. 3.80 GHz), though the benchmark results do not reflect that advantage.

The Xeon E5-1630 v3 is the choice for systems that require ECC memory, quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth (68.3 GB/s), or extensive PCIe expansion (40 lanes vs. 16). Its average benchmark score is nearly identical to the i7 (1823 vs. 1827, a 0.2% gap), so the overall performance tier is the same—but the Xeon consistently edges ahead in every measured workload.

Who should pick which? For a desktop user who wants a low-power CPU with integrated graphics, the i7-4790S is the only viable option. For a workstation or server environment that demands ECC, high memory bandwidth, and more PCIe lanes, the Xeon E5-1630 v3 is the clear winner. The data shows no scenario where the i7 wins a benchmark, so the decision rests on platform features, not raw speed.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-4790S | Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 |

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

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.00 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 140 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1150 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Codename | Haswell | Haswell-EP |

| Generation | Core i7 (Haswell) | Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 2,600 million |

| Die size | 177 mm² | 356 mm² |

| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 68.3 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

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

| Integrated graphics | Intel HD 4600 | None |

| Market segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Launch MSRP | $312 | null |

The two CPUs share the same 22 nm process, 4 cores, 8 threads, 64 KB L1 per core, and 256 KB L2 per core. Both have no unlocked multiplier and are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1630 v3 sweeps every benchmark in the head-to-head data, but the margins are surprisingly thin given its higher TDP and larger die. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 635 vs. the i7’s 595, a 6.3% lead. The R15 single-core test shows a 5.6% gap (89 vs. 84). Those are the most lopsided results in the set.

The margins tighten slightly in newer Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon scores 2647 vs. 2482, a 6.2% advantage. The R20 single-core result is 373 vs. 350, also 6.2%. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multicore 6303 vs. 5911 (6.2%) and single-core 889 vs. 834 (6.2%).

The i7-4790S has no benchmark wins. Its best showing is a 0.2% average score advantage (1827 vs. 1823), which comes from including Geekbench results in the average—the i7 has Geekbench scores (3307 multicore, 1056 single-core), while the Xeon does not have Geekbench entries in the data. That average gap is negligible and does not translate into any head-to-head win.

The Xeon’s single-core wins are notable because they come despite a lower boost clock (3.80 GHz vs. 4.00 GHz). This suggests the Xeon’s Haswell-EP architecture extracts more work per clock in these tests, or that the higher base clock (3.70 GHz vs. 3.20 GHz) matters more than the boost ceiling. The consistent 6.2% multicore delta also aligns with the Xeon’s larger L3 cache (10 MB vs. 8 MB) and higher memory bandwidth, though the benchmark scores alone cannot prove causation.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 wins on:

• Every single-core and multicore Cinebench test (R15, R20, R23) by margins from 5.6% to 6.3%.
• ECC memory support, which the i7 lacks entirely.
• Memory bandwidth: 68.3 GB/s vs. 25.6 GB/s, a 2.7x advantage.
• PCIe expansion: 40 lanes vs. 16 lanes, enabling more add-in cards.
• L3 cache capacity: 10 MB vs. 8 MB.
• A higher base clock (3.70 GHz vs. 3.20 GHz), which may help sustained workloads that do not rely on boost.

Intel Core i7-4790S wins on:

• Integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600 vs. none). The Xeon cannot output video without a discrete GPU.
• Lower TDP (65 W vs. 140 W), making it far easier to cool and power in a desktop chassis.
• Higher boost clock (4.00 GHz vs. 3.80 GHz), though this does not translate to benchmark wins.
• A slightly higher average benchmark score (1827 vs. 1823, a 0.2% edge), driven by its Geekbench results.

The use-case split is clean. The Xeon is for systems where CPU throughput, memory bandwidth, ECC reliability, and I/O expansion matter more than power draw or integrated graphics. The i7 is for compact, low-power desktops where the integrated GPU eliminates the need for a separate video card and the 65 W TDP keeps thermals manageable. The benchmark data says the Xeon is faster in every measured test, but the i7 occupies a platform niche the Xeon cannot serve.