Core i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1630 v3

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 i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1630 v3 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 i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1630 v3: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i3-9320

2019

Why buy it

✅Costs $218 less on MSRP ($154 MSRP vs $372 MSRP).
✅Delivers 139.5% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 47.8 vs 19.9 PassMark/$ ($154 MSRP vs $372 MSRP).
✅Draws 62W instead of 140W, a 78W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-1630 v3 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Lower PassMark (7,358 vs 7,421).
❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 10 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1630 v3, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads.

Xeon E5-1630 v3

2014

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +9.7% 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.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 19.9 vs 47.8 PassMark/$ ($372 MSRP vs $154 MSRP).
❌125.8% higher power demand at 140W vs 62W.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon E5-1630 v3 better than Core i3-9320?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1630 v3 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i3-9320 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 E5-1630 v3 is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 9.7% 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, Xeon E5-1630 v3 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.9% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has the larger cache pool with 66.7% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 6 MB).

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

Xeon E5-1630 v3 is still the better call for a fresh build. Xeon E5-1630 v3 comes in 141.6% more expensive on MSRP at $372 MSRP versus $154 MSRP, and it still gives you a 9.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Core i3-9320 only looks stronger on raw value math because it is so cheap, but its absolute performance tier is too low to be the better recommendation now. At roughly 7,358 PassMark with 4 cores and 4 threads, it only really makes sense as a bare-minimum stopgap or a very constrained existing-platform upgrade.

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

Core i3-9320 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2019 vs 2014). That makes it the safer long-term bet.

Core i3-9320 vs Xeon E5-1630 v3 Technical Specifications

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

Core i3-9320

The Core i3-9320 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 23 April 2019 (6 years ago). It is based on the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 4.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 14 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1151. Thermal design power (TDP): 62 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-2400. Passmark benchmark score: 7,358 points. Launch price was $149.

Xeon E5-1630 v3

The Xeon E5-1630 v3 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 2015-01-01. It is based on the Haswell-EP (2014−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.7 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 140 Watt. Memory support: DDR4-1333, DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866, DDR4-2133. Passmark benchmark score: 7,421 points. Launch price was $800.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i3-9320 packs 4 cores / 4 threads, matching the Xeon E5-1630 v3's 4 cores. Boost clocks reach 4.4 GHz on the Core i3-9320 versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1630 v3 — a 14.6% clock advantage for the Core i3-9320 (base: 3.7 GHz vs 3.7 GHz). The Core i3-9320 uses the Coffee Lake (2017−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-1630 v3 uses Haswell-EP (2014−2015) (22 nm). In PassMark, the Core i3-9320 scores 7,358 against the Xeon E5-1630 v3's 7,421 — a 0.9% lead for the Xeon E5-1630 v3. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i3-9320 vs 10 MB (total) on the Xeon E5-1630 v3.

Feature	Core i3-9320	Xeon E5-1630 v3
Cores / Threads	4 / 4	4 / 8
Boost Clock	4.4 GHz+16%	3.8 GHz
Base Clock	3.7 GHz	3.7 GHz
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	10 MB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256K (per core)
Process	14 nm-36%	22 nm
Architecture	Coffee Lake (2017−2019)	Haswell-EP (2014−2015)
PassMark	7,358	7,421

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i3-9320 uses the LGA1151 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1630 v3 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 4.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i3-9320	Xeon E5-1630 v3
Socket	LGA1151	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0	PCIe 4.0+33%

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i3-9320 was priced at $154, while the Xeon E5-1630 v3 came in at $372. On launch pricing ($154 vs $372), Core i3-9320 was $218 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i3-9320 delivers 47.8 pts/$ vs 19.9 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1630 v3 — making the Core i3-9320 the 82.2% better value option.

Feature	Core i3-9320	Xeon E5-1630 v3
MSRP	$154-59%	$372
Performance per Dollar	47.8+140%	19.9
Release Date	2019	2014

Search Core i3-9320 on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-1630 v3 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.