Core i3-4100M vs Xeon E5520

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 i3-4100M vs Xeon E5520 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 i3-4100M vs Xeon E5520: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-4100M

2013

Why buy it

✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 4600, while Xeon E5520 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5520 across 43 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (2,531 vs 2,541).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 8 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5520, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $225 MSRP, while Xeon E5520 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5520

2009

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +5.3% higher average FPS across 43 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.
✅Draws 80W instead of 512W, a 432W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-4100M can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5520 better than Core i3-4100M?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5520 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-4100M is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Xeon E5520 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 5.3% more average FPS across 43 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon E5520 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 166.7% larger total L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB).

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

Xeon E5520 is still the much better call for a fresh build. Xeon E5520 comes in at an unclear MSRP at unclear MSRP versus $225 MSRP, and it still gives you a 5.3% average FPS lead across 43 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-4100M only looks stronger on raw value math because it is extremely cheap, but that usually means used-market pricing on an obsolete 2013 platform. Even with 100.0% better value on paper (11.2 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), it really only makes sense as a cheap stopgap or a niche existing-platform option for someone already on PGA946.

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

Core i3-4100M makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2009). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-4100M vs Xeon E5520 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-4100M

The Core i3-4100M is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 4 June 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB. L2 cache: 512 kB. Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 37 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,531 points. Launch price was $225.

Xeon E5520

The Xeon E5520 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 March 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Gainestown (2009−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.26 GHz, with boost up to 2.53 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 2,541 points. Launch price was $19.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-4100M packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5520 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Xeon E5520 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 2.5 GHz on the Core i3-4100M versus 2.53 GHz on the Xeon E5520 — a 1.2% clock advantage for the Xeon E5520 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 2.26 GHz). The Core i3-4100M uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5520 uses Gainestown (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-4100M scores 2,531 against the Xeon E5520's 2,541 — a 0.4% lead for the Xeon E5520. L3 cache: 3 MB on the Core i3-4100M vs 8 MB (total) on the Xeon E5520.

Feature	Core i3-4100M	Xeon E5520
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	2.5 GHz	2.53 GHz+1%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz+11%	2.26 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB	8 MB (total)+167%
L2 Cache	512 kB+100%	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-51%	45 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Gainestown (2009−2010)
PassMark	2,531	2,541

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-4100M uses the PGA946 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5520 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-4100M	Xeon E5520
Socket	PGA946	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-4100M) / not specified (Xeon E5520). The Core i3-4100M includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 4600), while the Xeon E5520 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-4100M targets Mobile.