Intel Core i7-4790S vs Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i7-4790S. Across six Cinebench tests, the Xeon takes all six wins, with a consistent performance advantage between 8.3% and 9.4%. The Core i7-4790S does not record a single victory in any recorded test.

The closest contest appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 91 against the i7's 84, a delta of 8.3%. This is the narrowest margin of the entire comparison, but it still represents a clear, measurable lead for the Xeon in lightly threaded work. The multi-core results are equally one-sided: in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon posts 651 versus 595, a 9.4% advantage. That same 9.4% delta repeats across Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core tests, with scores of 2714 versus 2482 and 6464 versus 5911, respectively.

Single-core performance in the newer Cinebench versions follows the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 383 against 350, again a 9.4% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon reaches 912 while the i7 manages 834, also a 9.4% delta. The consistency of these margins is striking: the Xeon's advantage hovers almost exactly at 9.4% in five of the six tests, with only the R15 single-core result dipping to 8.3%.

The average benchmark scores from the database reinforce this hierarchy. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 carries an average score of 1869, while the Core i7-4790S sits at 1827. That difference of 42 points places the Xeon roughly 2.3% higher on average, though the nearest rival data shows both processors occupy the same percentile tier. Both chips rank at the 42nd percentile against all CPUs in the database, indicating that while the Xeon wins every direct comparison, neither part is a high-flyer in the broader market context.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each chip provides additional context. The Xeon E5-1630 v4's closest competitor is the Intel Core i3-9350K, which scores 1867, a delta of just 0.1%. The Xeon also edges out the Intel Core i5-1035G4 by 0.4% and the Intel Xeon E3-1545M v5 by 0.5%. For the Core i7-4790S, its nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v3 at 1823, a delta of 0.2% in the i7's favor. The i7 also sits essentially tied with the Intel Xeon D-1537 and Intel Xeon E5-2608L v3, both at 1830. These rival comparisons show that the Xeon E5-1630 v4's 42-point average score advantage over the i7-4790S is meaningful within this specific head-to-head, even if both chips cluster near similar-performing peers.

The Verdict

The data dictates a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 is the superior processor in every measured workload. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 8.3% to 9.4%. There is no recorded scenario in which the Core i7-4790S outperforms the Xeon. For any user prioritizing raw compute performance in Cinebench workloads, the Xeon is the only choice between these two.

The Core i7-4790S does have one clear advantage in the database: thermal design power. The i7 is rated at 65 watts, while the Xeon is rated at 140 watts. That is a substantial difference, and for systems where power consumption or cooling capacity is the primary constraint, the i7 becomes the more practical option despite its lower benchmark scores. However, the performance data itself shows no compensating benefit for the i7; it simply consumes less power while delivering less performance.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the verdict. The Xeon's 1869 average versus the i7's 1827 represents a real, if modest, overall lead. Both chips land at the 42nd percentile, so neither is a standout in the full CPU landscape. But within this pairing, the Xeon is the clear performance winner. Users who need maximum compute throughput from these two specific parts should select the Xeon E5-1630 v4. Users who need a lower-power desktop processor and can accept a roughly 9% performance deficit should consider the Core i7-4790S.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing processes. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-EP, using a 14 nm process node. The Core i7-4790S is built on the older Haswell architecture using a 22 nm process node. This process shrink gives the Xeon a significant transistor density advantage: the Xeon packs 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die, while the i7 uses 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The Xeon's die is larger in absolute terms, but its transistor count is more than double the i7's, reflecting the denser 14 nm manufacturing.

Cache configurations also differ. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, so those levels are identical. The L3 cache, however, favors the Xeon: it offers 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7 provides 8 MB. That 2 MB difference can matter in workloads with large working sets that benefit from additional last-level cache capacity.

Memory support is a major architectural divergence. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel memory bus, delivering 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. The Xeon's memory bandwidth is exactly three times higher, which is a substantial advantage for memory-intensive applications. Additionally, the Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i7 does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for reliability-critical workloads where memory error correction is required.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i7 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon's lane count is 2.5 times higher, enabling more expansion cards, NVMe drives, or GPU configurations without a chipset bottleneck. The i7 includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output.

The sockets are incompatible. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the i7 uses Intel Socket 1150. This means motherboard choice is entirely different for each processor, and there is no crossover compatibility. The Xeon also targets the desktop market segment per the database, as does the i7, but the platform requirements diverge significantly.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 wins all multi-core tests. It scores 651 versus 595 in Cinebench R15, 2714 versus 2482 in R20, and 6464 versus 5911 in R23, each a 9.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Core i7-4790S win any benchmark against the Xeon?

A: No. The database records six head-to-head Cinebench tests, and the Xeon wins all six. The Core i7-4790S records zero wins in this comparison.

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

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v4 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i7-4790S supports dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. The Xeon's bandwidth is exactly three times higher.

Q: Does the Core i7-4790S have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate GPU for display output.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1630 v4 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-4790S does not.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5-1630 v4 has an average benchmark score of 1869, while the Core i7-4790S has an average of 1827. Both rank at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 wins in every performance category recorded. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-core workloads, where it consistently leads by 9.4% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The Xeon also wins single-core tests, with margins between 8.3% and 9.4%. For applications that scale across multiple threads, such as video rendering, 3D modeling, or scientific computing, the Xeon's higher core clock base (3.70 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) and larger L3 cache (10 MB versus 8 MB) contribute to its lead. The Xeon's quad-channel DDR4 memory support with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth is a decisive factor for memory-bound workloads, offering three times the bandwidth of the i7's dual-channel DDR3 at 25.6 GB/s. The Xeon's 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also make it the clear choice for systems with multiple GPUs, high-speed storage arrays, or other expansion-heavy configurations. ECC memory support further positions the Xeon for server-style or reliability-sensitive tasks where data integrity is paramount.

The Intel Core i7-4790S wins in exactly one measurable category: power efficiency. Its 65 watt TDP is less than half of the Xeon's 140 watt TDP. For compact desktop builds, low-noise systems, or environments with strict thermal limits, the i7 is the more appropriate part. It also includes integrated graphics, which eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display or office workloads, reducing system cost and complexity. The i7's 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are sufficient for a single GPU or standard desktop peripherals. Its 8 MB L3 cache and 4.00 GHz boost clock match the Xeon's boost clock, so in short bursts of single-threaded activity, the i7 is not far behind, though the data still shows the Xeon leading in all single-core tests. The i7 also uses the older and more widely available Socket 1150 platform with DDR3 memory, which may offer lower platform costs for users building on existing hardware.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 and the Intel Core i7-4790S:

• Base clock: 3.70 GHz (Xeon) versus 3.20 GHz (i7)
• TDP: 140 watts (Xeon) versus 65 watts (i7)
• Socket: Intel Socket 2011-3 (Xeon) versus Intel Socket 1150 (i7)
• Architecture: Broadwell (Xeon) versus Haswell (i7)
• Process node: 14 nm (Xeon) versus 22 nm (i7)
• Transistors: 3,400 million (Xeon) versus 1,400 million (i7)
• Die size: 246 mm² (Xeon) versus 177 mm² (i7)
• L3 cache: 10 MB (Xeon) versus 8 MB (i7)
• Memory support: DDR4 (Xeon) versus DDR3 (i7)
• Memory bus: Quad-channel (Xeon) versus Dual-channel (i7)
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s (Xeon) versus 25.6 GB/s (i7)
• ECC memory: Supported (Xeon) versus not supported (i7)
• PCIe lanes: 40 (Xeon) versus 16 (i7)
• Integrated graphics: None (Xeon) versus Intel HD 4600 (i7)
• Release date: 2016 (Xeon) versus 2014 (i7)
• Launch MSRP: $406 (Xeon) versus $312 (i7)
• Part number: SR2PF (Xeon) versus SR1QM (i7)

Both processors share the same core and thread counts (4 cores, 8 threads), identical boost clocks (4.00 GHz), matching L1 and L2 cache sizes per core (64 KB and 256 KB), and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both are end-of-life products, both target the desktop market segment, and both use PCIe Gen 3. The Xeon's higher launch MSRP reflects its larger die, more advanced process node, and server-oriented features like ECC support and quad-channel memory, though pricing is not a factor in the performance analysis.