Intel Core i3-1305U vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data delivers a decisive result: the Intel Xeon W-3175X wins all six shared benchmark comparisons, with the Intel Core i3-1305U trailing by a consistent margin. The most striking pattern is the uniformity of the performance gap. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 3900 against 723 for the Core i3, a delta of 439.4%. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical in proportional terms: 550 versus 102, a 439.2% advantage. This consistency suggests the difference is structural, not workload-specific.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon W-3175X posts 16250 in multicore, while the Core i3-1305U manages 3016. That translates to a 438.8% lead. In single-core R20, the scores are 2294 and 425, respectively, a 439.8% gap. The same story repeats in Cinebench R23: multicore 38692 for the Xeon versus 7183 for the Core i3, and single-core 5462 versus 1014. Both deltas sit at 438.7%. The near-constant percentage across every generation of the Cinebench suite points to a fundamental throughput disparity that scales uniformly.

For context, the Xeon W-3175X holds a 66th percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 10369. Its closest rivals include the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N, which scores 10347 for a delta of just 0.2%, and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 at 10230, a 1.4% difference. The Core i3-1305U also sits at the 66th percentile, but its average score is higher: 11200. That places it near the AMD EPYC 7542 (11152, 0.4% behind) and the AMD EPYC 7452 (11279, with the Core i3 trailing by 0.7%). This is a noteworthy anomaly: the mobile chip’s average across its broader benchmark set exceeds the workstation processor’s average, yet in every direct Cinebench comparison, the Xeon dominates. The explanation lies in the benchmark mix, as the Core i3 includes PassMark workloads where it excels, while the head-to-head list is entirely Cinebench-based.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins every single-core test in the head-to-head set. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 5462 versus 1014 for the Core i3-1305U, a 438.7% lead. The R20 single-core gap is 439.8%, and the R15 single-core gap is 439.2%.

Q: How large is the multicore performance difference?

A: The Xeon W-3175X leads by 439.4% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 438.8% in R20 multicore, and 438.7% in R23 multicore. The absolute scores are 3900 versus 723, 16250 versus 3016, and 38692 versus 7183.

Q: Does the Core i3-1305U win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The recorded data shows zero wins for the Core i3-1305U across all six shared benchmarks. The Xeon W-3175X holds a 6 to 0 win record.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Xeon W-3175X averages 10369, with its closest rival, the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N, scoring 10347 for a 0.2% delta. The Core i3-1305U averages 11200, with the AMD EPYC 7452 scoring 11279, leaving the Core i3 0.7% behind, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3500U scores 11176, a 0.2% gap.

Q: Why does the Core i3-1305U have a higher average benchmark score if it loses every head-to-head test?

A: The average benchmark score draws from a wider set of tests than the head-to-head list. The Core i3-1305U includes PassMark workloads such as data compression (92767), integer math (27925), and floating-point math (19687), which boost its average. The head-to-head comparison only uses Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, where the Xeon dominates.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X is end-of-life, while the Intel Core i3-1305U is active. The Xeon launched on 2019-01-29, and the Core i3 launched on 2023-01-03.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and design philosophies. The Intel Xeon W-3175X uses the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-W, built on Intel’s 14 nm process with 8,000 million transistors on a 688 mm² die. The Core i3-1305U uses Raptor Lake, specifically Raptor Lake-U, on a 10 nm process. The Xeon’s die size and transistor count are recorded; the Core i3’s die size and transistor count are not listed in the database.

Core counts diverge sharply. The Xeon W-3175X packs 28 cores and 56 threads, while the Core i3-1305U has 5 cores and 6 threads. The Xeon’s cache hierarchy reflects its server/workstation heritage: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 38.5 MB of shared L3. The Core i3 offers 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. Note that the per-core L1 and L2 values are larger on the Core i3, but the total L3 cache is far smaller.

Memory support also differs fundamentally. The Xeon W-3175X supports DDR4 over a six-channel memory bus, with a recorded memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. The Core i3-1305U supports DDR4 and DDR5 over a dual-channel bus, and its bandwidth is not listed. The Xeon also supports ECC memory; the Core i3 does not. PCIe connectivity favors the Xeon as well: Gen 3 with 48 lanes from the CPU, versus Gen 4 with 8 lanes on the Core i3. The Core i3 includes integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 64EU), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed.

The Xeon W-3175X has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core i3-1305U is locked. The Xeon is socketed on Intel Socket 3647; the Core i3 is soldered as BGA 1744. Market segments differ accordingly: the Xeon targets server/workstation, the Core i3 targets mobile.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon W-3175X | Intel Core i3-1305U |

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

| Cores | 28 | 5 |

| Threads | 56 | 6 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 1600.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 255 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

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

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

| L3 Cache | 38.5 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| ECC Support | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 48 Lanes | Gen 4, 8 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 64EU |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

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

| Launch MSRP | $2999 | $309 |

The base clocks are recorded in different units in the database, but the boost clocks show the Core i3-1305U at a higher peak: 4.50 GHz versus 4.30 GHz. The TDP difference is extreme: 255 W for the Xeon versus 15 W for the Core i3. The Xeon’s launch MSRP is $2999, while the Core i3’s is $309.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-3175X is the clear winner in any workload that stresses sustained parallel throughput. Its 28 cores and 56 threads, combined with 38.5 MB of shared L3 and six-channel DDR4 memory, deliver a 438.7% to 439.4% advantage across all Cinebench versions. For rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, or any heavily threaded server/workstation task, the data is unambiguous. The Xeon also wins single-core tests, despite the Core i3’s higher boost clock, because the Xeon’s per-core performance in Cinebench is simply superior: 5462 versus 1014 in R23 single-core. The Xeon’s 66th percentile ranking among all CPUs, with an average score of 10369, confirms it remains competitive against newer server parts like the Xeon Gold 6338N.

The Intel Core i3-1305U wins in the broader benchmark suite, even though it loses every head-to-head test. Its average benchmark score of 11200 exceeds the Xeon’s 10369, driven by PassMark results. Specifically, the Core i3-1305U achieves 92767 in data compression, 27925 in integer math, and 19687 in floating-point math. These are not in the head-to-head list, but they indicate that for certain single-threaded or lightly threaded workloads, the Core i3 can outperform the Xeon. Its higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz and Raptor Lake architecture likely contribute to this, though the database does not provide per-test deltas for PassMark against the Xeon. The Core i3 also supports DDR5 memory and includes integrated graphics, making it suitable for mobile systems where power efficiency (15 W TDP) and compact packaging are priorities. Its 6 threads and 10 MB of L3 are modest, but the chip’s active production status and modern 10 nm process mean it is a current-generation part.

In practical terms, the Xeon W-3175X is for a workstation or server chassis where power and space are available, and where multicore rendering or compute is the primary task. The Core i3-1305U is for a thin-and-light laptop or embedded design where the workload is mixed, power is scarce, and the integrated GPU removes the need for a discrete card. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and 255 W TDP make it a legacy choice, but the benchmark data shows it still outclasses the mobile chip by a factor of roughly 5.4 in every direct comparison. The Core i3’s advantage is not in raw Cinebench performance, but in the breadth of its PassMark results and its efficiency profile.