Intel Core i3-1125G4 vs Intel Core i5-8600 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-8600 and Intel Core i3-1125G4 sit at the same 48th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 2454 versus 2451, a 0.1% gap. Yet the two chips are fundamentally different designs: a 6-core desktop part from the Coffee Lake generation against a 4-core mobile part from Tiger Lake. The data shows a clear pattern in head-to-head testing, with the older desktop chip winning every single Cinebench run, but the margins are consistently narrow, never exceeding 8.2%. This makes the comparison less about raw dominance and more about how each chip’s architecture translates into real-world performance within its intended platform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The i5-8600 wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but the victories are uniform and modest. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-8600 scores 855 against 792 for the i3-1125G4, an 8% advantage. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in percentage terms: 120 versus 111, an 8.1% edge. This consistency continues through the newer benchmark versions — R20 multicore shows 3564 against 3301 (8%), and R20 single-core shows 503 against 465 (8.2%). The R23 runs repeat the same story, with the i5-8600 posting 8486 versus 7860 in multicore (8%) and 1198 versus 1109 in single-core (8%).

The fact that the deltaPct hovers almost exactly at 8% across every test suggests a systematic performance advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. The i5-8600’s higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz versus 3.70 GHz likely explains the single-core edge, while its two additional physical cores (6 versus 4) contribute to the multicore lead. However, the i3-1125G4 narrows the gap substantially through its 8 threads (versus 6 on the i5-8600) and its newer 10 nm Willow Cove architecture, which delivers more instructions per clock than the older 14 nm Coffee Lake design.

The closest contest comes in R20 single-core, where the 38-point difference (503 to 465) represents the largest relative gap at 8.2%. Interestingly, the i3-1125G4 has additional Geekbench results not available for the i5-8600, scoring 4509 in multicore and 1461 in single-core, but these cannot be directly compared since the i5-8600 lacks corresponding Geekbench data in the record. Overall, the benchmark data indicates the i5-8600 is the faster processor in every measured Cinebench scenario, but the i3-1125G4 remains competitive enough that its platform advantages matter more than the raw score differences.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i5-8600 scores 2454 on average, while the Intel Core i3-1125G4 scores 2451. This is a 0.1% difference, placing both chips at the 48th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: How much faster is the i5-8600 in multi-core workloads?

A: Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, the i5-8600 leads by exactly 8% in each case. Scores are 855 versus 792 (R15), 3564 versus 3301 (R20), and 8486 versus 7860 (R23).

Q: Does the i3-1125G4 win any benchmark comparisons?

A: No. In the six recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, the i5-8600 wins all six. The i3-1125G4 has no wins in the head-to-head data, though it does have Geekbench scores that the i5-8600 lacks.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The i5-8600 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i3-1125G4 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i3-1125G4’s hyper-threading allows it to process more threads than physical cores.

Q: How do the integrated graphics compare?

A: The i5-8600 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the i3-1125G4 features Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4. The i3-1125G4’s graphics are part of its newer Tiger Lake architecture, but no benchmark scores for graphics are provided in the data.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The i5-8600 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the i3-1125G4 has a TDP of 15 watts. This reflects their different market segments — desktop versus mobile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different platforms. The i5-8600 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, while the i3-1125G4 uses Tiger Lake-U (Willow Cove-U) on a 10 nm node. This process shrink is significant, as the newer 10 nm node allows the i3-1125G4 to achieve competitive performance at a fraction of the power draw. The i5-8600 has a die size of 154 mm², slightly larger than the i3-1125G4’s 144 mm², despite the latter having fewer physical cores.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The i5-8600 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a 9 MB shared L3 cache. The i3-1125G4 offers 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core — a much larger L2 allocation — but its shared L3 is 8 MB, slightly smaller. This larger L2 cache on the i3-1125G4 helps compensate for its lower clock speeds. The memory support also differs: both use dual-channel DDR4, but the i3-1125G4 additionally supports LPDDR4X, which is typical for mobile designs. The i5-8600 has a listed memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the i3-1125G4’s bandwidth is not specified in the data.

PCIe capabilities favor the newer chip. The i3-1125G4 supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, whereas the i5-8600 uses PCIe Gen 3 with the same 16 lanes. The i3-1125G4 also integrates newer graphics in the form of Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4, compared to the older UHD Graphics 630 on the i5-8600. Socket types are entirely different — the i5-8600 fits Intel Socket 1151 for desktop builds, while the i3-1125G4 uses Intel BGA 1449, meaning it is soldered onto the motherboard rather than upgradeable.

The Verdict

The benchmark data clearly favors the Intel Core i5-8600 in raw CPU performance. It wins every Cinebench test, with consistent 8% to 8.2% margins across both single-core and multi-core workloads. For users who prioritize maximum processing power in Cinebench-style rendering tasks, the i5-8600 is the better choice. Its 6 cores and higher boost clock of 4.30 GHz give it a measurable edge that persists across all benchmark versions tested.

However, the i3-1125G4 is not far behind, and its advantages lie outside the Cinebench scores. It consumes only 15 watts versus 65 watts, making it dramatically more power-efficient. Its 8 threads provide better multitasking capability than the i5-8600’s 6 threads, even if the raw scores are lower. The i3-1125G4 also supports PCIe Gen 4 and LPDDR4X memory, and its integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4 is a newer design than the UHD Graphics 630. The i3-1125G4’s launch MSRP was $281, while the i5-8600’s was $213.

The verdict depends on the use case. For a desktop system where power consumption is not a concern and maximum Cinebench performance is required, the i5-8600 is the stronger option. For a mobile or compact system where the 15-watt TDP and integrated graphics matter more than an 8% performance delta, the i3-1125G4 is more appropriate. The data does not support calling either chip a clear winner overall — they occupy the same performance tier, as shown by their nearly identical average scores.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The i5-8600 has 6 cores and 6 threads, while the i3-1125G4 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are starkly different: the i5-8600 runs at 3.10 GHz, while the i3-1125G4’s base clock is listed as 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz). Boost clocks are 4.30 GHz and 3.70 GHz, respectively. The TDP gap is the largest architectural difference — 65 watts for the i5-8600 versus 15 watts for the i3-1125G4.

Socket compatibility is entirely separate, with the i5-8600 using Intel Socket 1151 and the i3-1125G4 using Intel BGA 1449. Process nodes differ (14 nm versus 10 nm), as do die sizes (154 mm² versus 144 mm²). Cache layouts are distinct, with the i5-8600 offering 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core plus 9 MB shared L3, while the i3-1125G4 offers 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core plus 8 MB shared L3. Memory support sees the i5-8600 limited to DDR4, while the i3-1125G4 adds LPDDR4X. The i5-8600 lists a memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s; the i3-1125G4 has no bandwidth figure. PCIe generations differ (Gen 3 versus Gen 4, both 16 lanes), and integrated graphics differ (UHD Graphics 630 versus Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4). Market segments are desktop versus mobile, and release dates are 2018-02-13 versus 2021-03-30.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-8600 wins in every measured benchmark category. For Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 — both single-core and multicore — it outperforms the i3-1125G4 by roughly 8%. This makes it the better choice for CPU-intensive rendering, video encoding, or any workload that scales with raw clock speed and core count. Its 6 physical cores and 4.30 GHz boost clock provide a consistent advantage that the i3-1125G4 cannot overcome despite its newer architecture. The i5-8600 also offers a higher memory bandwidth figure (42.7 GB/s versus unspecified) and a larger shared L3 cache (9 MB versus 8 MB).

The i3-1125G4 wins in efficiency and platform flexibility, though not in any recorded benchmark. Its 15-watt TDP is a fraction of the i5-8600’s 65-watt requirement, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or fanless designs. The 8 threads provide better parallel task handling than the i5-8600’s 6 threads, which could benefit lightly threaded multitasking scenarios even if total throughput is lower. The i3-1125G4 supports PCIe Gen 4 and LPDDR4X memory, enabling faster storage and more modern memory configurations. Its Iris Xe-LP Graphics G4 integrated GPU is a newer design than the UHD Graphics 630, potentially offering better media playback and light gaming performance, though no graphics benchmarks are provided to confirm this. For mobile users who need adequate CPU performance with minimal power draw, the i3-1125G4 is the practical pick; for desktop users who want the highest Cinebench scores, the i5-8600 remains the data-backed choice.