CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5620 and Intel Pentium Gold G5600 are two very different processors that land in the same performance bracket. The Xeon is an older 4-core/8-thread server part from the Westmere generation, while the Pentium Gold is a newer 2-core/4-thread desktop chip built on Coffee Lake. Despite the generational gap, their benchmark scores are remarkably close, with the Xeon winning all five head-to-head Cinebench tests by margins under 1.1%. The data shows two CPUs separated by eight years of architecture but virtually tied in raw output.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are unusually one-sided. The Intel Xeon E5620 wins every single head-to-head test in the database, taking all five Cinebench comparisons. The margins are thin, the largest is a 1.1% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core, but the consistency is notable. The Xeon wins both multi-core and single-core tests, which means it holds a slight edge across all workload types.

That said, the Pentium Gold G5600 is not far behind anywhere. It loses by only 0.7% in Cinebench R15 multi-core and by 0.6% in Cinebench R20 multi-core. The single-core gaps are similarly narrow: 1.1% in R20 and 0.7% in R23. For practical purposes, these two chips are interchangeable in terms of raw Cinebench performance. The Xeon's wins are real but statistically small, so the use-case split comes down to platform features rather than benchmark supremacy.

The Xeon E5620's advantage lies in its 8 threads and 12 MB of shared L3 cache, which makes it better suited for heavily threaded workloads that scale beyond four threads. The Pentium Gold G5600 counters with a much higher 3.90 GHz base clock, newer DDR4 memory support, and integrated graphics, making it the more complete package for a basic desktop system. In scenarios where the platform matters more than the CPU score, such as building a new machine versus upgrading an old server board, the Pentium Gold is the practical choice.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here is substantial. The Xeon E5620 uses the Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, built on Intel's 32 nm process node. It packs 1,170 million transistors into a 239 mm² die. The Pentium Gold G5600 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, fabricated on Intel's 14 nm node, with a much smaller 126 mm² die. The process shrink explains the Pentium's lower 54 W TDP versus the Xeon's 80 W, despite the Pentium running at a much higher clock speed.

Core configuration is where the Xeon looks stronger on paper. The E5620 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the G5600 has only 2 cores and 4 threads. Both share the same L1 cache (64 KB per core) and L2 cache (256 KB per core), but the Xeon's L3 cache is triple the size: 12 MB shared versus 4 MB shared. The Xeon also supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, whereas the Pentium Gold uses dual-channel DDR4 with a rated bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s.

Other differences matter for platform decisions. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, a server/workstation socket, and carries Gen 2 PCIe. The Pentium Gold uses Intel Socket 1151, has Gen 3 PCIe with 16 lanes (CPU only), and includes integrated UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a desktop Pentium but present here. The Xeon is locked with a multiplier, as is the Pentium Gold, so neither offers overclocking headroom.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The five Cinebench comparisons show a clear pattern: the Xeon E5620 wins every time, but by margins that would be lost in run-to-run variance. Starting with Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 301 against the Pentium's 299, a 0.7% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 1255 versus 1247, a 0.6% advantage. Both chips scale nearly identically across these multi-threaded tests, which suggests their thread-count difference is offset by the Pentium's clock speed.

Single-core results follow the same script. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 177 against the Pentium's 175, a 1.1% win. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 422 versus 419, a 0.7% edge. The Xeon's older Westmere architecture is clearly no faster per clock than Coffee Lake, the Pentium runs at 3.90 GHz versus the Xeon's 2.40 GHz base and 2.67 GHz boost, yet the Xeon still ekes out a win. This suggests the Xeon's larger cache and memory bandwidth compensate for its clock deficit.

The overall average benchmark scores tell the same story. The Xeon E5620 has an average benchmark score of 1029, while the Pentium Gold G5600 sits at 1022. Both are in the 28th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they perform similarly to a broad swath of mid-range processors. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B (deltaPct 0.2) and the Intel Core i3-4340 (deltaPct 0.3), while the Pentium's rivals include the Intel Core i7-975 (deltaPct -0.1) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2500U (deltaPct -0.1). Neither chip is a standout in its bracket.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Xeon E5620 is the faster processor in absolute terms, winning all five head-to-head benchmarks. If you are comparing raw Cinebench scores, the Xeon is the pick, it edges out the Pentium Gold in every single test, with the largest margin being 1.1% in Cinebench R20 single-core. Its 8 threads and 12 MB L3 cache give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, even if the measured gains are small.

However, the Pentium Gold G5600 is the better choice for a new build. It uses a modern Socket 1151 platform with DDR4 memory, Gen 3 PCIe, and integrated UHD Graphics 630, none of which the Xeon offers. The Xeon requires a legacy Socket 1366 motherboard, triple-channel DDR3, and a separate graphics card. Its 80 W TDP is higher, and its clock speeds are far lower, 2.40 GHz base versus 3.90 GHz. The performance difference is negligible in practice, but the platform difference is enormous.

Benchmark results indicate that anyone upgrading an existing Xeon E5620 system should not feel pressure to move. The scores are close enough that the Xeon remains competitive. Conversely, anyone building from scratch should choose the Pentium Gold G5600 for its modern platform and lower power draw. The data does not support paying a premium for either chip; they are essentially equal in compute performance, so the decision should rest on socket, memory, and graphics requirements.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 301 to 299 in Cinebench R15, 1255 to 1247 in R20, and 2989 to 2971 in R23, with margins of 0.7%, 0.6%, and 0.6% respectively.

Q: Does the Pentium Gold G5600 have any single-core advantage?

A: No. The Xeon E5620 also wins single-core tests. It scores 177 to 175 in Cinebench R20 (1.1% lead) and 422 to 419 in Cinebench R23 (0.7% lead), despite the Pentium's higher 3.90 GHz clock speed.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each CPU?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Pentium Gold G5600 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 cache per core.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5620 and the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 have ECC memory support. The Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3, while the Pentium uses dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630. The Intel Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 has an average benchmark score of 1029, while the Intel Pentium Gold G5600 scores 1022. Both are in the 28th percentile of all CPUs.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5620 | Intel Pentium Gold G5600 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 3.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.67 GHz | None |

| TDP | 80 W | 54 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Westmere | Coffee Lake |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 239 mm² | 126 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release Date | 2010-03-15 | 2018-04-01 |

| Launch MSRP | None | $86 |

| Part Number | SLBV4 | SR3YB |