Intel Core 5 220H vs Intel Xeon 6337P Comparison

The Intel Core 5 220H and Intel Xeon 6337P are both active Raptor Lake parts, yet they target very different corners of the market. The 220H is a mobile processor with a 45 watt TDP and integrated Iris Xe graphics, while the 6337P is a server/workstation chip with an 80 watt TDP and no integrated graphics. The benchmark data reveals a clear split: the Xeon dominates in raw compute and single-threaded tasks, while the Core 5 wins in specific memory and integer workloads. This analysis explores where each chip excels, what the architecture reveals, and who should choose which based solely on the numbers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most dramatic divergence appears in the Cinebench R23 results. In the multicore test, the Intel Xeon 6337P scores 18783 against the Core 5 220H’s 11198, a 40.4% advantage. This is a staggering gap for two processors on the same 10 nm node. The single-core R23 test tells a similar story: the Xeon posts 2651 versus 1853, a 30.1% lead. These are the largest deltas in the entire comparison, and they suggest the Xeon’s architectural tuning is heavily weighted toward sustained, high-frequency compute.

The Xeon also wins the other Cinebench tests, though by much narrower margins. In R15 multicore, it edges ahead with 1893 against 1835, a 3.1% difference. The R20 multicore result is closer still: 7888 versus 7812, just 1% apart. The single-core R15 and R20 tests are similarly tight, with the Xeon winning by 1.9% and 1%, respectively. This pattern implies that in older rendering workloads, the two chips are nearly interchangeable, but newer Cinebench versions expose a significant capability gap in the Xeon’s favor.

PassMark results paint a more nuanced picture. The Core 5 220H wins four tests, led by a 20.7% advantage in data encryption (15216 versus 12604) and an 8.8% lead in random string sorting (28438 versus 26135). It also outperforms in data compression by 4.4% (247921 versus 237373) and integer math by 1.7% (73555 versus 72301). These wins suggest the Core 5 has specific strengths in memory-intensive and integer-heavy operations, despite its overall lower core count.

The Xeon counters with wins in extended instructions (15366 versus 14642, a 4.7% edge), floating point math (53150 versus 51671, 2.8%), and find prime numbers (108 versus 82, a 24.1% blowout). The physics test also favors the Xeon by 14.5% (1729 versus 1478). The single-thread PassMark score is decisive for the Xeon: 4104 versus 3405, a 17% margin. The passmark_multithread result is nearly dead even, with the Xeon ahead by just 1% (22098 versus 21884).

Overall, the Xeon wins 13 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks. The Core 5’s four wins are concentrated in areas where its 12 cores and 16 threads can leverage parallel memory operations. The data shows a processor that is faster in the majority of tests, but the Core 5 is not without its own pockets of superiority.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Raptor Lake architecture and a 10 nm process node from Intel, but they diverge significantly in implementation. The Core 5 220H uses the Raptor Lake-H codename and belongs to the Core 5 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It packs 12 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.90 GHz. The Xeon 6337P, meanwhile, uses the Raptor Lake-R codename and is part of the Xeon 6 (Raptor Lake Refresh) generation. It has only 6 cores and 12 threads, but its clocks are substantially higher: 3.50 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost.

The cache layout differs in the L2 tier. The Core 5 allocates 2 MB of L2 per core, while the Xeon uses 1.25 MB per core. Both share an identical 18 MB L3 cache and 80 KB L1 per core. The Xeon’s smaller L2 per core is offset by its higher clock speeds, which likely explains its dominance in single-threaded and lightly threaded workloads. The Core 5’s larger L2 per core may contribute to its wins in data compression and string sorting, where larger working sets can stay closer to the core.

The memory support is identical on paper: both support DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. However, the Xeon adds ECC memory support, a critical feature for server and workstation reliability, while the Core 5 lacks it. The PCIe implementation also differs: the Xeon offers Gen 5 with 16 lanes (CPU only), double the 8 lanes of the Core 5. This is a significant differentiator for the Xeon in I/O-intensive server roles.

The Xeon has a larger die size at 163 mm², while the Core 5’s die size is not listed. Both are fabricated by Intel on the same node. The Xeon’s market segment is Server/Workstation, and it has no integrated graphics, whereas the Core 5 is a Mobile part with Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. These architectural choices reflect their intended use cases: the Xeon prioritizes clock speed, ECC, and PCIe bandwidth, while the Core 5 balances cores, graphics, and power efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon 6337P is the clear choice for compute-heavy workloads that scale with clock speed. Its 30.1% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 17% lead in PassMark single-thread demonstrate a substantial advantage in lightly threaded applications. The 24.1% win in find prime numbers reinforces this, as prime-finding algorithms are often single-threaded and latency-sensitive. The physics test, where the Xeon leads by 14.5%, also favors its higher boost clock. For rendering, the 40.4% multicore R23 margin is the strongest argument for the Xeon in modern multi-threaded rendering engines.

The Core 5 220H wins in areas that appear to favor its higher core count and larger L2 cache. Its 20.7% lead in data encryption is the most significant win, suggesting that cryptographic operations benefit from the Core 5’s 12 cores and 16 threads. The 8.8% edge in random string sorting points to a memory-access pattern advantage. Data compression, with a 4.4% lead, also favors the Core 5. The integer math win, though modest at 1.7%, shows the Core 5 is not entirely outclassed in CPU-bound integer tasks.

The passmark_multithread score is nearly identical, with the Xeon ahead by just 1%. This indicates that in a generic multi-threaded workload, the two processors are effectively tied, despite the Xeon’s core-count disadvantage. The data suggests the Xeon’s higher clocks compensate for its fewer cores in many threaded scenarios, but the Core 5’s extra cores win out in specific memory-intensive operations.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal several key differences beyond the benchmark scores. The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon 6337P has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ by 0.80 GHz in favor of the Xeon (3.50 versus 2.70), and boost clocks differ by 0.40 GHz (5.30 versus 4.90). The TDP is nearly double for the Xeon: 80 watts versus 45 watts.

The sockets are incompatible: the Core 5 uses Intel BGA 1744, a mobile socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1700 for desktop/workstation platforms. The Xeon’s die size is listed at 163 mm², while the Core 5’s is not provided. L2 cache per core is 2 MB for the Core 5 and 1.25 MB for the Xeon, though both share 18 MB L3. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the Core 5 does not. PCIe lanes differ: the Xeon has Gen 5 with 16 lanes, the Core 5 has Gen 5 with 8 lanes. The Core 5 includes Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The market segments also differ: Mobile for the Core 5, Server/Workstation for the Xeon. Release dates are close, with the Core 5 launching in December 2024 and the Xeon in February 2025. The launch MSRP is $342 for the Core 5 and $375 for the Xeon. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and both are currently in active production.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon 6337P is significantly faster, scoring 18783 versus the Core 5 220H’s 11198, a 40.4% advantage.

Q: Does the Core 5 220H win any benchmarks?

A: Yes, it wins four tests: data compression (4.4% lead), data encryption (20.7% lead), integer math (1.7% lead), and random string sorting (8.8% lead).

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Core 5 220H has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon 6337P has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon 6337P supports ECC memory, but the Core 5 220H does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon 6337P has a boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which is 0.40 GHz higher than the Core 5 220H’s 4.90 GHz.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core 5 220H has an average benchmark score of 28574, while the Xeon 6337P scores 28333, a difference of less than 1%.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Xeon 6337P for users who prioritize raw compute performance, especially in single-threaded and modern multi-threaded rendering workloads. Its 40.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multicore and 30.1% lead in single-core are decisive. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and double the PCIe lanes, making it suitable for server and workstation environments where reliability and I/O bandwidth are critical. The higher TDP and lack of integrated graphics are acceptable trade-offs for a dedicated compute platform.

The Intel Core 5 220H is the better choice for mobile applications and workloads that benefit from its 12 cores and specific memory-access patterns. Its wins in data encryption and random string sorting suggest it handles certain integer and memory-intensive tasks more efficiently. The integrated Iris Xe Graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios. Its lower TDP makes it viable for laptops and compact systems.

For a generic multi-threaded workload, the passmark_multithread scores are nearly tied, with the Xeon ahead by just 1%. This means the choice should be driven by specific workload requirements. If the task involves encryption, compression, or integer math, the Core 5’s wins are meaningful. If the task involves rendering, physics, or prime-finding, the Xeon’s advantages are compelling. The Xeon wins 13 of 17 benchmarks, but the Core 5’s four wins are in distinct, practical categories. The verdict depends on whether those categories or the Xeon’s broad dominance matter more.