Core i3-1115G4 vs Xeon E5-1620

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i3-1115G4 vs Xeon E5-1620 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i3-1115G4 vs Xeon E5-1620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i3-1115G4

2020

Why buy it

✅+0.2% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 15W instead of 130W, a 115W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with UHD Graphics for 11th Gen (48 EU), while Xeon E5-1620 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1620 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 10 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1620, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-1620

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +17.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 4.
✅900% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 4) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,848 vs 5,860).
❌Launch MSRP is still $885 MSRP, while Core i3-1115G4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.
❌766.7% higher power demand at 130W vs 15W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-1115G4 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-1115G4 better than Xeon E5-1620?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-1115G4 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-1115G4 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i3-1115G4 is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5-1620 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core i3-1115G4 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $885 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.2% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-1620 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 17.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E5-1620 is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (6.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i3-1115G4 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2020 vs 2012), more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/8, and AVX-512 support for heavier modern compute workloads. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i3-1115G4 vs Xeon E5-1620 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i3-1115G4

The Core i3-1115G4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2 September 2020 (5 years ago). It is based on the Tiger Lake-UP3 (2020−2021) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.2 GHz, with boost up to 4.1 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 1.25 MB (per core). Built on 10 nm SuperFin process technology. Socket: FCBGA1449. Thermal design power (TDP): 15 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 5,860 points. Launch price was $281.

Xeon E5-1620

The Xeon E5-1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10240 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,848 points. Launch price was $313.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-1115G4 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5-1620 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Xeon E5-1620 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4.1 GHz on the Core i3-1115G4 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 — a 7.6% clock advantage for the Core i3-1115G4 (base: 2.2 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i3-1115G4 uses the Tiger Lake-UP3 (2020−2021) architecture (10 nm SuperFin), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-1115G4 scores 5,860 against the Xeon E5-1620's 5,848 — a 0.2% lead for the Core i3-1115G4. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 1,579 vs 612, a 88.3% lead for the Core i3-1115G4 that directly translates to higher frame rates. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i3-1115G4 vs 10240 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620.

Feature	Core i3-1115G4	Xeon E5-1620
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	4.1 GHz+8%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	2.2 GHz	3.6 GHz+64%
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	10240 kB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	1.25 MB (per core)+400%	256 kB (per core)
Process	10 nm SuperFin-69%	32 nm
Architecture	Tiger Lake-UP3 (2020−2021)	Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,860	5,848
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	3,469
Geekbench 6 Single	1,579+158%	612
Geekbench 6 Multi	—	2,250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-1115G4 uses the FCBGA1449 socket (PCIe 4.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Maximum memory speed reaches DDR4-3200 on the Core i3-1115G4 versus DDR3-1600 on the Xeon E5-1620 — the Core i3-1115G4 supports 100% faster memory, which can translate to measurable gains in memory-sensitive workloads. The Xeon E5-1620 supports up to 375 GB of RAM compared to 64 GB — 485.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i3-1115G4) vs 4 (Xeon E5-1620). PCIe lanes: 4 (Core i3-1115G4) vs 40 (Xeon E5-1620) — the Xeon E5-1620 offers 36 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives.

Feature	Core i3-1115G4	Xeon E5-1620
Socket	FCBGA1449	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 4.0+100%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-3200+100%	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	375 GB+486%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	4	40+900%

🔧

Advanced Features

Only the Core i3-1115G4 supports AVX-512 instructions — important for machine learning and scientific applications. Virtualization support: VT-x, VT-d, EPT (Core i3-1115G4) vs true (Xeon E5-1620). The Core i3-1115G4 includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics for 11th Gen (48 EU)), while the Xeon E5-1620 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-1115G4 targets Mainstream Laptop. Direct competitor: Core i3-1115G4 rivals Ryzen 3 5300U.

Feature	Core i3-1115G4	Xeon E5-1620
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	UHD Graphics for 11th Gen (48 EU)	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	Yes	No
Virtualization	VT-x, VT-d, EPT	true
Target Use	Mainstream Laptop	—