Intel Xeon or Intel Core - which processor is better to choose?

Let's start with some of the most affordable processors today, while the Xeon stone will be even slightly younger than its competitor. Of course, you can find even cheaper office chips with two cores, but we will not include them in our comparison, since there is not much point in buying such stones, and the presented models are suitable for a wide range of tasks, including simple games. Both chips are no longer young, built according to the same process technology, and the difference in price is only about 500 rubles. As befits a representative of the Xeon family, CPU E5-2620 v3 has an advantage in the number of cores, cache size, energy efficiency and received support for DDR4 memory. In its turn i7-4820K obviously better in terms of operating frequencies, plus it can offer a free multiplier, i.e. much better prepared for overclocking opportunities.

Given the above, the results of testing chips in various benchmarks are quite expected. Performance The Intel Xeon E5-2620 is clearly superior in tasks that use multiple cores at once, while the Intel Core i7-4820K is faster where the maximum load falls on only one computing core. In this case, the advantage is higher operating frequency. What does this mean in practice? In any office or graphics software, the E5-2620 processor will perform better than the i7-4820K chip. The advantage will be provided not only by the high-quality implementation of multi-core support, but also by the increased cache size, coupled with support for more modern RAM: the exchange of data with a stone from the Xeon line is much faster, which compensates for the lag in the operating frequency when computing is distributed over several cores. But in games, especially old ones, where the entire load is concentrated on one core, the advantage will either not be so obvious, or i7-4820K will perform a little better, especially at the minimum graphics settings.

Summarize. In battle E5-2620 v3 versus i7-4820K estimated for comparison criteria a slight advantage on the side of the chip Xeon line. Moreover, the key role in the victory was played by the support of more modern RAM and a clear gap in terms of energy efficiency, after all, the E5-2620 v3 processor consumes less energy and is able to withstand higher operating temperatures, which is important for operating the computer in always-on mode. From a performance point of view, the most noticeable lag The i7-4820K will only be fixed in complex software, such as graphics processing.

This time we have a comparison of chips built on a common architecture coffee lake. Both participants have 4 processing cores on board, support two DDR4 memory channels, lack a free multiplier, but the Xeon line processor is almost 5,000 rubles more expensive. Is the overpayment justified? For this money, you will only get support for slightly faster RAM with a maximum operating frequency of up to 2666 MHz and a bandwidth of 41.6 Gb / s versus 37.5 Gb / s and 2400 MHz for the rival from the Core series. Besides, chip E-2124 has an additional 2 MB of cache in the third level and uses the bus option a little more efficiently, although it is inferior in terms of the base operating frequency. In general, a reasonable overpayment does not look.

Confirm the output and test results. Yes, at Intel xeon E-2124 there is some advantage in both single-core and multi-core computing, but on average it provides a performance boost of 3.1%, which will not be particularly noticeable even in graphics software. In games while the chips have absolute parity with micro-deviations in one direction or another, depending on the features of the game project itself.

As a result, in terms of average score, the chips are again close, but now the advantage is on the side of the Core line, and to a greater extent due to the best price the stone considered in comparison. Otherwise, the processors are almost equal, with an additional plus in favor of i3-9100F a slightly lower TDP can be considered, i.e. the chip is less demanding on the cooling system.

In this fight, processors with a very biting price for most buyers will converge. Does it make sense at a cost of more than 20,000 rubles to "save" on the new Core, choosing an older Xeon, but with a doubled number of cores? Now let's figure it out.

At first glance, it may seem that 12 cores in E5-2670 v3 will clearly provide better performance than 6 for the i5-11600, but in reality it turns out differently. Yes, the Xeon line chip is again more efficient in terms of working with the amount of RAM and its bandwidth, supports up to 4 memory channels and has a significantly larger cache, but is much inferior in the processing power of individual cores and especially in the capabilities of the bus. In addition, fresh Core i5-11600 works with fast memory DDR4-3200, which allows faster data exchange, leveling the advantage of the E5-2670 v3 in the number of cores. As a result, a pebble from the Core line gives out best performance level in all tests, and in the load mode per core, the advantage can reach 116%.

An additional plus is the presence in the design of the i5-11600 integrated graphics core, thanks to which the chip is fully gaming and fits into the recommended requirements of all modern games, being on average 31% better than the E5-2670 v3. The only thing where Xeon will prove to be more effective is its direct server purpose, after all, a huge cache and the ability to work simultaneously with 24 streams data in this case will outweigh all the advantages of Core.

Let's finish our comparison with two chips with a price on the verge of a foul - the average user is unlikely to buy something more expensive, after all, expensive pebbles are aimed at a more demanding audience, ready to fork out even for insignificant advantages and branded "buns".

In our case, the chip Intel xeon E5-1650 v2 will cost an average of 4500 rubles cheaper than the processor Core i7-6700K and will offer 6 cores with a base frequency of 3.5 GHz. In turn, the competitor has 4 cores, but with a base frequency of 4.0 GHz. In terms of bust, the Core family stone offers a smaller growth range, but this chip model has free multiplier, i.e. manual overclocking is much more efficient, so overclocking will not be able to level the lag of the E5-1650 v2, which means reaching a similar level of operating frequencies is unlikely. In addition, the E5-1650 v2 works with slow, outdated DDR3 memory, while the i7-6700K supports DDR4 up to 2133 MHz, so data transfer is faster, and this is a plus for overall performance.

The preponderance of the Core i7 chip is especially noticeable in applications that use only one processing core of the processor - here the largest performance gain can reach 41% compared to Xeon E5.In multiprocessor tasks, the capabilities of the chips are approximately equal, only in graphics software the E5-1650 v2 has a speed increase of 3-16%, depending on the task being solved. As for games, the i7-6700K does not give a noticeable advantage to the naked eye, but it has integrated graphics and can work more stable due to faster RAM support, for which the score will be slightly increased.

Attempt to "catch" in the market Xeon chips with approximately the same price, but at the same time significantly more productive chips Core generally doomed to failure. Yes, they will often better in terms of memory, will show themselves in all their glory under extreme loads, especially in multitasking mode, will show greater resistance to overheating, but they will not be able to provide a clearly noticeable difference in performance in simple office programs or in popular games. Still, it is not in vain that Intel divides its lines into desktop Core and server Xeon. For building a home PC, focused on everyday use and gaming most optimal choice - these are processors of the Core family, and it is worth giving preference to the Xeon line only when forming server station or a specialized computer to work under high loads in complex computing systems (artificial intelligence, 3D drawings, etc.).