Core i3-7300 vs Xeon E5-2603 v4

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 i3-7300 vs Xeon E5-2603 v4 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 i3-7300 vs Xeon E5-2603 v4: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-7300

2017

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.1% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅Draws 51W instead of 85W, a 34W reduction.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with HD Graphics 630, while Xeon E5-2603 v4 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (4 MB vs 15 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2603 v4, which brings 6 cores / 6 threads.
❌Launch MSRP is still $184 MSRP, while Xeon E5-2603 v4 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5-2603 v4

2016

Why buy it

✅+275% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 4 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 6 threads.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Core i3-7300 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (4,517 vs 4,519).
❌66.7% higher power demand at 85W vs 51W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i3-7300 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i3-7300 better than Xeon E5-2603 v4?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2603 v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-7300 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i3-7300 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 4.1% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i3-7300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 4 threads.

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

Core i3-7300 is the better buy right now. Core i3-7300 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $184 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 4.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (24.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), 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 i3-7300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 4 threads instead of 6/6. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i3-7300 vs Xeon E5-2603 v4 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-7300

The Core i3-7300 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 2 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 4 GHz, with boost up to 4 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 51 Watt. Memory support: DDR4. Passmark benchmark score: 4,519 points. Launch price was $147.

Xeon E5-2603 v4

The Xeon E5-2603 v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 6 cores and 6 threads. Base frequency is 1.7 GHz, with boost up to 1.7 GHz. L3 cache: 15 MB. L2 cache: 1.5 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 85 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866. Passmark benchmark score: 4,517 points. Launch price was $213.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-7300 packs 2 cores / 4 threads, while the Xeon E5-2603 v4 offers 6 cores / 6 threads — the Xeon E5-2603 v4 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 4 GHz on the Core i3-7300 versus 1.7 GHz on the Xeon E5-2603 v4 — a 80.7% clock advantage for the Core i3-7300 (base: 4 GHz vs 1.7 GHz). The Core i3-7300 uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2603 v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-7300 scores 4,519 against the Xeon E5-2603 v4's 4,517 — a 0% lead for the Core i3-7300. L3 cache: 4 MB (total) on the Core i3-7300 vs 15 MB on the Xeon E5-2603 v4.

Feature	Core i3-7300	Xeon E5-2603 v4
Cores / Threads	2 / 4	6 / 6+200%
Boost Clock	4 GHz+135%	1.7 GHz
Base Clock	4 GHz+135%	1.7 GHz
L3 Cache	4 MB (total)	15 MB+275%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)+16967%	1.5 MB
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	4,519	4,517

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-7300 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2603 v4 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 3.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-7300	Xeon E5-2603 v4
Socket	LGA1151	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 3.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR4-2400	—
Max RAM Capacity	64 GB	—
RAM Channels	2	—
ECC Support	Yes	—
PCIe Lanes	16	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: VT-x, VT-d (Core i3-7300) / not specified (Xeon E5-2603 v4). The Core i3-7300 includes integrated graphics (HD Graphics 630), while the Xeon E5-2603 v4 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i3-7300 targets Desktop.