Intel Core i3-1115G4 vs Intel Xeon W-2195 Comparison

# Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided comparison. The Intel Xeon W-2195 wins all six shared Cinebench tests, with victory margins that are almost unsettlingly consistent. Every single-core and multi-core test shows the Xeon W-2195 ahead by approximately 383% — the deltas range from 382.9% to 383.6%, a narrow band that suggests the performance gap is driven by fundamental architectural scaling rather than test-specific quirks.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon W-2195 scores 2401 against the Core i3-1115G4's 497, a 383.1% advantage. The single-core R15 result tells the same story: 338 versus 70, a 382.9% delta. This is striking because single-core performance typically narrows gaps between drastically different processor classes — the fact that it does not here indicates the Xeon's higher boost clock and older-but-wider Skylake core simply overwhelms the newer Tiger Lake design in this workload.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds precisely. Multi-core shows 10007 versus 2071 (383.2% delta), while single-core shows 1412 versus 292 (383.6% delta). The R23 results continue the trend: 23828 versus 4933 multi-core (383% delta) and 3363 versus 696 single-core (383.2% delta). The consistency across R15, R20, and R23 is notable — Cinebench versions scale differently with memory bandwidth and cache, yet the relative performance remains virtually unchanged.

What does this mean in practical terms? The Xeon W-2195 delivers roughly 4.8 times the performance of the Core i3-1115G4 in every Cinebench metric measured. The Core i3-1115G4's 2 cores and 4 threads simply cannot compete with 18 cores and 36 threads in multi-threaded rendering, but the single-core deficit of nearly 383% is more surprising given the i3's newer 10 nm process and higher per-core cache allocation.

Notably, the i3-1115G4 does have additional benchmark results not shared with the Xeon — Geekbench and Passmark scores — but these cannot be directly compared here. The head-to-head table only includes the six Cinebench tests, and in all of them, the Xeon W-2195 is the decisive winner.

# FAQ

Q: Why does the Intel Xeon W-2195 win every head-to-head benchmark?

A: The Xeon W-2195 has 18 cores and 36 threads versus the Core i3-1115G4's 2 cores and 4 threads, and its boost clock of 4.30 GHz exceeds the i3's 4.10 GHz. The data shows 383%+ deltas across all six Cinebench tests, reflecting both the core-count advantage in multi-threaded workloads and the clock-speed edge in single-threaded ones.

Q: Is the Core i3-1115G4 competitive in single-core performance?

A: No. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 3363 while the i3 scores 696 — a 383.2% delta. Despite the i3's newer Tiger Lake architecture and 10 nm process, its lower boost clock and smaller core design cannot overcome the Xeon's Skylake-W implementation in these tests.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in average benchmark scores?

A: The Xeon W-2195 has an average benchmark score of 6892, placing it 0.2% below the Intel Core i5-3470 (6906) and 0.6% below the AMD Ryzen 3 3200G (6931). The Core i3-1115G4 averages 6851, matching the AMD Athlon X4 970 (6850) and sitting 0.7% below the Intel Xeon Gold 6154 (6803).

Q: What does the percentile rank indicate for these two CPUs?

A: Both processors share a percentileVsAllCpus of 63, meaning they outperform 63% of all CPUs in the database. This is remarkable given their vastly different core counts and market segments — the 18-core Xeon and 2-core i3 land at the same percentile, suggesting the i3's efficiency and the Xeon's raw throughput balance out in aggregate rankings.

Q: Which processor has better memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon W-2195 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core i3-1115G4 uses dual-channel DDR4 or LPDDR4X, and its memory bandwidth figure is not provided in the data pack, so a direct numerical comparison is not possible.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No. Both the Intel Xeon W-2195 and the Intel Core i3-1115G4 have multiplierUnlocked set to false, meaning neither supports unlocked multiplier overclocking.

# Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two Intel processors is generational and physical. The Xeon W-2195 is built on Skylake-W architecture using a 14 nm process node, while the Core i3-1115G4 uses Tiger Lake (Willow Cove-U) on a 10 nm node. This process shrink gives the i3 a transistor-density advantage — its die size is 144 mm² compared to the Xeon's 484 mm², yet the Xeon packs 18 cores into its larger die.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with 24.75 MB of shared L3. The i3 offers 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but only 6 MB of shared L3. Per-core, the i3 has more L1 and L2, but the Xeon's massive L3 pool — over four times larger — serves its 18-core configuration. This explains why the Xeon maintains such commanding leads even in single-threaded tests where cache size matters less.

Memory support divides them further. The Xeon W-2195 runs quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The i3-1115G4 runs dual-channel DDR4 or LPDDR4X, has no listed bandwidth figure, and does not support ECC. For workstation and server workloads, ECC support is often non-negotiable, making the Xeon the only viable choice in that regard.

PCIe capabilities also differ sharply. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 48 CPU lanes, while the i3 offers Gen 4 with only 4 lanes. The Xeon's lane count is critical for multi-GPU or high-density storage configurations; the i3's single-lane-pair Gen 4 connection is suited to a mobile platform's limited expansion needs.

The integrated graphics situation is one-sided: the i3-1115G4 includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4, while the Xeon W-2195 has none. This reflects their target markets — mobile processors require on-die graphics, whereas workstation Xeons assume a discrete GPU.

Production status and release dates highlight the generational gap. The Xeon W-2195 launched on August 28, 2017, and is now end-of-life. The i3-1115G4 launched September 1, 2020, and remains active. The Xeon's part number is SR3RX; the i3's is SRK08. Both are socket-specific — the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2066, while the i3 uses Intel BGA 1449, meaning the i3 is soldered and not upgradeable.

# The Verdict

The data paints an unambiguous picture: the Intel Xeon W-2195 outperforms the Intel Core i3-1115G4 by approximately 383% in every shared benchmark. There are zero wins for the i3-1115G4 across the six head-to-head tests. For workloads measured by Cinebench — rendering, multi-threaded content creation, and CPU-bound computation — the Xeon is categorically superior.

The Xeon's 18 cores and 36 threads, combined with 24.75 MB of L3 cache and quad-channel DDR4 with ECC support, make it the clear choice for server and workstation workloads. Its 85.3 GB/s memory bandwidth and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes enable configurations that the i3's 4 Gen 4 lanes cannot approach. The launch MSRP for the Xeon W-2195 is $2553, reflecting its workstation positioning.

The Core i3-1115G4, with 2 cores and 4 threads, 6 MB of L3, and dual-channel memory without ECC, is fundamentally a mobile processor. Its 15 W TDP versus the Xeon's 140 W TDP indicates entirely different thermal envelopes. The i3 includes integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics, making it suitable for compact systems where discrete GPUs are impractical.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The Xeon W-2195 averages 6892, while the i3-1115G4 averages 6851 — a mere 0.6% difference. Both sit at the 63rd percentile. This suggests that in aggregate across a broader benchmark suite (including the i3's additional Geekbench and Passmark results), the two processors are nearly equivalent. The Xeon's Cinebench dominance is offset by other workload types where the i3's newer architecture and higher per-core cache efficiency close the gap.

Who should pick which? The data supports the Xeon W-2195 for anyone running Cinebench-class multi-threaded render workloads, ECC memory requirements, or PCIe expansion needs. The i3-1115G4 makes sense for mobile or low-power systems where integrated graphics, a 15 W TDP, and active production status matter more than raw compute throughput.

# Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W-2195 | Intel Core i3-1115G4 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 18 | 2 |

| Threads | 36 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.30 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2066 | Intel BGA 1449 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Tiger Lake |

| Codename | Skylake-W | Tiger Lake-U |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 484 mm² | 144 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24.75 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, LPDDR4X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 85.3 GB/s | Not provided |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 48 Lanes | Gen 4, 4 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2017-08-28 | 2020-09-01 |

| Launch MSRP | $2553 | $281 |

| Part Number | SR3RX | SRK08 |

# Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W-2195 wins decisively in all six head-to-head Cinebench tests — R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants. The deltas range from 382.9% to 383.6%, making it the clear victor for rendering, 3D modeling, video encoding, and any multi-threaded compute task. Its 18 cores and 36 threads, 24.75 MB L3 cache, and 85.3 GB/s quad-channel memory bandwidth provide the infrastructure for sustained high-throughput workloads. The ECC memory support and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes further cement its position for servers and workstations where data integrity and expansion capability are paramount.

The Core i3-1115G4 wins in categories not covered by the head-to-head benchmarks. Its integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4 means it can drive displays without a discrete GPU, something the Xeon cannot do. Its 15 W TDP makes it suitable for fanless or passively cooled designs, whereas the Xeon's 140 W TDP requires substantial cooling. The i3's 10 nm process and 144 mm² die size suggest better power efficiency per unit of silicon, though the data pack does not provide direct efficiency metrics. Its active production status and newer release date (September 2020 versus August 2017) mean it remains available for new designs, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

For single-threaded performance relative to its power envelope, the i3's results — 696 in R23 single-core against the Xeon's 3363 — show it lags absolutely, but at 15 W versus 140 W, the per-watt comparison would likely favor the i3, though no such metric exists in the data pack. The i3 also supports LPDDR4X memory, which is optimized for mobile power efficiency, while the Xeon is limited to DDR4.

In aggregate benchmark scores, the two are nearly tied: the Xeon's 6892 average versus the i3's 6851, a 0.6% difference. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i5-3470 (6906, -0.2%) and Ryzen 3 3200G (6931, -0.6%), while the i3's nearest rivals include the Athlon X4 970 (6850, 0%) and Xeon Gold 6154 (6803, 0.7%). This places both processors in the same performance tier for average workloads, despite their divergent architectures and intended use cases.