CPU Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The two are statistically tied. The Intel Xeon E-2174G posts an average benchmark score of 2588, while the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 scores 2587. The delta between them is 0%, and both sit at the 49th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins the multi-core test with a score of 8946, beating the Intel Xeon E-2174G's 8091 by 9.6%. This is the largest multi-core delta of any test in the head-to-head set.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E-2174G win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. In the six head-to-head benchmarks (Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, each with single-core and multi-core tests), the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins all six. The Intel Xeon E-2174G records zero wins.

Q: What is the single-core performance difference in Cinebench R15?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 scores 127 in Cinebench R15 single-core, while the Intel Xeon E-2174G scores 114. This gives the E5-4620 v3 a 10.2% advantage, the largest single-core delta in the head-to-head data.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, compared to the Intel Xeon E-2174G's 4 cores and 8 threads. The E5-4620 v3 also has a larger shared L3 cache: 25 MB versus 8 MB.

Q: How do their memory buses differ?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus with a peak bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s. The Intel Xeon E-2174G uses a dual-channel bus with a peak bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Both support DDR4 memory.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E-2174G is built on Intel's 14 nm process and comes from the Coffee Lake-S WS architecture, part of the Xeon E-2100 series. Its die size is 126 mm². In contrast, the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 is a 22 nm part based on the Haswell-EP architecture, with a notably larger die measuring 356 mm² and a transistor count of 2,600 million. The process node difference of 8 nm is significant, but the newer node does not translate into a performance lead in this comparison.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The E-2174G packs 4 cores and 8 threads, while the E5-4620 v3 offers 10 cores and 20 threads, a 6-core and 12-thread advantage. Cache hierarchies follow that pattern: both allocate 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 8 MB on the E-2174G versus 25 MB on the E5-4620 v3. That larger cache pool is a meaningful architectural asset for workloads that benefit from shared data residency.

Clock speeds tell the opposite story. The E-2174G has a base clock of 3.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The E5-4620 v3 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 2.60 GHz. The E-2174G therefore runs at substantially higher frequencies, yet this does not overcome the core-count deficit in the benchmark results. The E5-4620 v3 also carries a higher TDP of 105 W versus the E-2174G's 71 W, reflecting the larger silicon and higher core count.

Memory and I/O architecture differ as well. The E5-4620 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The E-2174G is limited to dual-channel DDR4 at 42.7 GB/s and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Both support ECC memory. The E-2174G includes integrated HD Graphics P630, while the E5-4620 v3 has no integrated graphics. Socket compatibility also diverges: the E-2174G uses Intel Socket 1151, and the E5-4620 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins every single head-to-head comparison, taking all six tests with deltas ranging from 9.5% to 10.2%. The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it leads by 10.2%; the smallest is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, at 9.5%. Across the remaining four tests (R20 and R23, both single- and multi-core), the E5-4620 v3 consistently leads by 9.6%.

Given this sweep, the E5-4620 v3 is the clear choice for any workload that prioritizes raw benchmark performance. Its 10-core, 20-thread configuration and 25 MB of L3 cache provide a structural advantage that higher clock speeds on the E-2174G cannot offset. The E-2174G does offer a lower TDP (71 W vs 105 W), a more modern 14 nm process, and integrated graphics, which may appeal to specific system designs, but the performance verdict is not close.

The practical recommendation depends on the use case. If the decision is purely performance-driven and the system can accommodate the larger Socket 2011-3 platform, the E5-4620 v3 is the superior part. If the priority is a compact, lower-power socket with integrated graphics and the workload is not heavily threaded, the E-2174G remains viable, but it will lose every benchmark comparison in this head-to-head. There is no test scenario in the provided data where the E-2174G comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E-2174G | Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 10 |

| Threads | 8 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.80 GHz | 2000.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.70 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| TDP | 71 W | 105 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Haswell |

| Codename | Coffee Lake-S WS | Haswell-EP |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 356 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 2,600 million |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 25 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

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

| Integrated Graphics | HD Graphics P630 | None |

| Launch MSRP | $334 | $1668 |

The specification table shows a clear division of strengths. The E5-4620 v3 offers more cores, threads, cache, memory bandwidth, and PCIe lanes. The E-2174G counters with higher clocks, a smaller die on a newer process, lower TDP, and integrated graphics. Both support DDR4 and ECC memory, and both are marked as end-of-life products. The release dates differ by roughly three years: the E-2174G launched in July 2018, while the E5-4620 v3 launched in May 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results form a consistent pattern: the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 outperforms the Intel Xeon E-2174G across every test, with margins that are tightly clustered between 9.5% and 10.2%. This consistency suggests a structural performance gap rather than test-specific variability.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5-4620 v3 scores 901 against the E-2174G's 815, a 9.5% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the largest relative gap: the E5-4620 v3 posts 127 versus 114, a 10.2% lead. This is notable because single-core performance typically favors higher clock speeds, and the E-2174G has a 4.70 GHz boost clock versus 2.60 GHz on the E5-4620 v3. Yet the E5-4620 v3 still wins by double digits, indicating that architecture efficiency and per-core performance on Haswell-EP are sufficient to overcome the clock disadvantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the E5-4620 v3 leads by 9.6% in both multi-core (3757 vs 3398) and single-core (530 vs 479). The margins are identical, suggesting a uniform performance scaling between the two parts. Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern: the E5-4620 v3 scores 8946 in multi-core versus 8091, and 1263 in single-core versus 1142, again a 9.6% delta in both cases.

The data shows zero wins for the Intel Xeon E-2174G. Out of six head-to-head benchmarks, the E5-4620 v3 takes all six. The average benchmark scores reflect this near-tie overall (2588 vs 2587), but that aggregate figure masks the fact that the E5-4620 v3 wins every individual test. The reason the averages are so close is that the E-2174G's higher clock speeds and newer architecture narrow the gap, but never close it.

For workloads that rely on multi-threaded throughput, rendering, scientific computing, database workloads, the E5-4620 v3's 10-core advantage delivers a consistent 9.5% to 9.6% edge. For lightly threaded tasks, the E5-4620 v3 still wins, with single-core margins of 9.6% to 10.2%. The performance story is therefore not one of trade-offs; it is a straightforward sweep. The E-2174G's only advantages are in platform-level attributes like TDP, socket size, integrated graphics, and launch MSRP, none of which appear in the benchmark results.