Core i3-4170 vs Xeon E5620

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 i3-4170 vs Xeon E5620 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 i3-4170 vs Xeon E5620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-4170

2014

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 54W instead of 80W, a 26W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 4400, while Xeon E5620 needs a discrete GPU.
✅Includes a boxed cooler (Yes), unlike Xeon E5620.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5620 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (3 MB vs 12 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5620, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $117 MSRP, while Xeon E5620 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5620

2010

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +6.4% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+300% larger total L3 cache (12 MB vs 3 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (3,621 vs 3,626).
❌48.1% higher power demand at 80W vs 54W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-4170 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.
❌No boxed cooler included, unlike Core i3-4170.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-4170 better than Xeon E5620?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-4170 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 i3-4170 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-4170 is the better buy right now. Core i3-4170 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $117 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5620 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 6.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (31.0 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i3-4170 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2014 vs 2010) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i3-4170 vs Xeon E5620 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-4170

The Core i3-4170 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 1 May 2014 (11 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.7 GHz. L3 cache: 3 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1150. Thermal design power (TDP): 54 Watt. Memory support: DDR3-1333/1600, DDR3L-1333/1600. Passmark benchmark score: 3,626 points. Launch price was $117.

Xeon E5620

The Xeon E5620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 16 March 2010 (15 years ago). It is based on the Westmere-EP (2010−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 2.66 GHz. L3 cache: 12 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 3,621 points. Launch price was $35.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-4170 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5620 offers 4 cores / 8 threads — the Xeon E5620 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.7 GHz on the Core i3-4170 versus 2.66 GHz on the Xeon E5620 — a 32.7% clock advantage for the Core i3-4170 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz). The Core i3-4170 uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5620 uses Westmere-EP (2010−2011) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-4170 scores 3,626 against the Xeon E5620's 3,621 — a 0.1% lead for the Core i3-4170. L3 cache: 3 MB (total) on the Core i3-4170 vs 12 MB (total) on the Xeon E5620.

Feature	Core i3-4170	Xeon E5620
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	4 / 8+100%
Boost Clock	3.7 GHz+39%	2.66 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz+54%	2.4 GHz
L3 Cache	3 MB (total)	12 MB (total)+300%
L2 Cache	256 kB (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
PassMark	3,626	3,621
Geekbench 6 Single	1,140	—
Geekbench 6 Multi	1,897	—

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-4170 uses the LGA1150 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5620 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-4170	Xeon E5620
Socket	LGA1150	LGA1366
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1600	—
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-4170) / not specified (Xeon E5620). The Core i3-4170 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 4400), while the Xeon E5620 requires a dedicated GPU.