Intel Core i7-4790T vs Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 and Intel Core i7-4790T are two Haswell-era socket 1150 processors that appear nearly identical on paper—both have 4 cores, 8 threads, and an 8 MB shared L3 cache—but their benchmark results tell a story of consistent, if modest, separation. In every head-to-head test recorded, the Xeon E3-1241 v3 comes out ahead, with the Core i7-4790T trailing by roughly 13% across the board. The average benchmark scores are almost indistinguishable—1756 for the Xeon and 1755 for the i7—placing both at the 41st percentile of all CPUs, yet the Xeon’s advantage in raw compute tasks is clear and repeatable. The data shows a processor that trades its integrated graphics and lower power draw for a measurable performance edge, making the choice between them depend less on raw capability and more on system priorities.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the benchmark data is the uniformity of the Xeon’s lead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 612 against the i7’s 541, a 13.1% advantage. That gap carries over to single-core testing in R15, where the Xeon’s 86 beats the i7’s 76 by 13.2%. This is not a case of one chip winning on multi-threaded workloads while the other takes single-threaded; the Xeon dominates both.

The trend continues in newer Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 2550 multi-core versus 2258 for the i7, a 12.9% difference, and 359 single-core versus 318, also 12.9%. Cinebench R23 shows the same margin: 6072 vs. 5378 multi-core and 857 vs. 759 single-core, both at 12.9%. When a processor wins six out of six tests with deltas ranging from 12.9% to 13.2%, the conclusion is straightforward: the Xeon E3-1241 v3 is consistently faster in CPU-bound rendering workloads.

The i7-4790T does have one benchmark in the fact pack that the Xeon lacks—Geekbench scores of 3520 multi-core and 1193 single-core—but since the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench result, no direct comparison is possible. What matters is that in the shared Cinebench suite, the Xeon’s minimum win is 12.9%. The i7’s lower base clock of 2.70 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.50 GHz is the obvious contributor, even though both boost to 3.90 GHz. The Xeon’s higher sustained clock speed translates directly into a double-digit performance advantage in every test recorded.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 wins every multi-core test in the data. In Cinebench R15, it scores 612 vs. 541; in R20, 2550 vs. 2258; and in R23, 6072 vs. 5378. That’s a consistent 12.9–13.1% lead over the Core i7-4790T.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon also wins all single-core tests. Cinebench R15 shows 86 vs. 76 (13.2% ahead), R20 shows 359 vs. 318 (12.9% ahead), and R23 shows 857 vs. 759 (12.9% ahead). The i7 never takes a single-core win.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1241 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-4790T does not. This is a key differentiator for users building a workstation or server where error-correcting memory is required.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption?

A: The Xeon has a TDP of 80 watts, while the i7-4790T has a TDP of 45 watts. The i7 is designed for lower power draw, which makes it better suited for compact or thermally constrained systems.

Q: Do either of these CPUs include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i7-4790T includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4600. The Xeon E3-1241 v3 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1756, and the i7’s is 1755. The difference is negligible, and both sit at the 41st percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon’s nearest rival, the i7-4790T, has a deltaPct of 0, meaning they are statistically tied on average despite the Xeon’s consistent wins in specific tests.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same 22 nm Haswell architecture and use the same Intel foundry, with identical transistor counts of 1,400 million. The core and thread counts match at 4 cores and 8 threads, and the cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Memory support is also the same—dual-channel DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth—and both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The architectures diverge in a few important areas. The Xeon E3-1241 v3 carries the codename Haswell-WS, indicating a workstation/server variant, while the i7-4790T is simply Haswell, a desktop part. The die size differs: the Xeon measures 160 mm², while the i7 is larger at 177 mm². This is notable because the Xeon achieves its performance with a smaller die, likely due to the absence of integrated graphics. The i7-4790T includes Intel HD 4600 graphics, which occupies die space and contributes to its larger physical footprint.

The most significant architectural feature difference is ECC memory support. The Xeon supports ECC, a hallmark of server and workstation processors, while the i7 does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-sensitive workloads like data processing or long-running compute tasks. The market segments reflect this: the Xeon is classified as Server/Workstation, while the i7 is Desktop. The i7’s lower TDP of 45 watts versus the Xeon’s 80 watts also indicates a different design goal—the i7 is engineered for efficiency, while the Xeon prioritizes sustained performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several specification fields, and these differences explain the benchmark results. The base clock is the most obvious: the Xeon runs at 3.50 GHz, while the i7 runs at 2.70 GHz. Both boost to 3.90 GHz, so the Xeon’s advantage comes from its higher minimum clock speed. TDP is another differentiator: 80 watts for the Xeon versus 45 watts for the i7. The i7’s lower TDP is a direct consequence of its lower base clock and is its primary selling point.

The die size differs as mentioned, with the Xeon at 160 mm² and the i7 at 177 mm². ECC memory support is present only on the Xeon. Integrated graphics are present only on the i7 (Intel HD 4600). The market segment differs: Server/Workstation for the Xeon, Desktop for the i7. The release dates are close—the Xeon launched on 2014-05-10 and the i7 on 2014-04-30—but the i7 came first by about ten days.

The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $273, while the i7’s launch MSRP is not listed. Both processors are end-of-life and have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking. The part numbers differ: SR1R4 for the Xeon and SR1QS for the i7. Neither processor has a vCache3d field, so that is not a distinguishing factor. The socket is the same—Intel Socket 1150—so both fit the same motherboards, assuming the board supports the Xeon’s ECC feature set.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1241 v3 is the faster processor in every Cinebench test recorded. For users who prioritize raw CPU performance in rendering or compute workloads, the Xeon is the better choice. It offers a 12.9–13.2% advantage across R15, R20, and R23, which is a meaningful margin for multi-minute render jobs. The Xeon also adds ECC memory support, which is a non-negotiable feature for certain workstation and server applications.

The Core i7-4790T, however, is not without its strengths. Its 45-watt TDP is nearly half the Xeon’s 80 watts, making it a far better fit for low-power builds, small form factor systems, or environments where heat dissipation is a concern. It includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, so it can run without a discrete GPU, which is a decisive advantage for basic office or media center use. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—1756 vs. 1755—so in mixed workloads, the difference may be imperceptible.

The choice comes down to use case. If the system will be a dedicated compute box with a discrete GPU and ECC RAM, the Xeon is the clear winner. If the system needs to be quiet, cool, and capable of running without a graphics card, the i7-4790T is the practical pick. The data does not support a one-size-fits-all verdict; it supports a use-case-driven recommendation.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1241 v3 wins in every scenario where CPU compute is the bottleneck. Cinebench multi-core tests, which stress all threads, show the Xeon ahead by 12.9–13.1%. Single-core tests, which matter for lightly threaded applications like older games or certain productivity tools, show the same 12.9–13.2% edge. This makes the Xeon the better choice for video encoding, 3D rendering, software compilation, and any workload that scales with clock speed and thread count. The ECC support also makes it the only option for systems that need error-correcting memory, such as a file server or a workstation running long simulations.

The Core i7-4790T wins on efficiency and system integration. Its 45-watt TDP allows for passive cooling in some cases or at least much smaller heatsinks, making it ideal for HTPCs or compact desktops. The integrated HD 4600 graphics means no discrete GPU is required, reducing cost and power draw for basic display tasks. For a system that spends most of its time idle or under light load, the i7-4790T will consume significantly less power than the Xeon. The i7 also has Geekbench results—3520 multi-core and 1193 single-core—which, while not directly comparable to the Xeon, show it is not a slouch in general-purpose performance.

In short, the Xeon is the performance king for sustained, multi-threaded work. The i7-4790T is the efficiency king for low-power, integrated systems. The benchmark scores are close enough that neither is a bad purchase, but the intended use case should dictate the choice. If you need the fastest possible Haswell socket 1150 CPU for CPU-bound tasks, the Xeon is it. If you need the lowest power draw and a GPU included, the i7 is the answer.