Intel Core i3-7100H vs Intel Xeon W3565 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-7100H and the Intel Xeon W3565 make for one of the stranger matchups in the database: a dual-core mobile chip from 2017 against a quad-core workstation part from 2009. Both are end-of-life, both sit near the bottom third of all recorded CPUs in the percentile rankings, and yet the recorded benchmark data tells a consistent and slightly surprising story. The mobile dual-core sweeps every single test in the head-to-head record, winning by margins between 1.5 and 1.8 percent. That near-total convergence across an eight-year architectural gap is worth unpacking, and this analysis walks through what the numbers imply about each design.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall according to the recorded benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i3-7100H wins all five recorded tests. Its average benchmark score of 1009 also edges out the Xeon W3565's average of 993, a difference of about 1.6 percent in the database's aggregate metric.

Q: How large are the Core i3-7100H's wins in the head-to-head data?

A: Every margin falls within a narrow band. The i3-7100H leads by 1.7 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core (295 versus 290), 1.6 percent in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1231 versus 1212), 1.8 percent in Cinebench R20 single-core (173 versus 170), 1.5 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2932 versus 2888), and 1.7 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core (414 versus 407).

Q: How does each chip compare to the broader CPU landscape?

A: Both sit low in the rankings. The i3-7100H lands in the 28th percentile versus all CPUs in the database, and the Xeon W3565 sits at the 27th percentile. Effectively, they occupy the same tier of the historical performance spectrum.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon W3565, with 4 cores and 8 threads, doubles the i3-7100H's 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite that advantage in thread count, the recorded multi-core scores still favor the i3-7100H.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon W3565 does. Its ECC support reflects its server and workstation heritage. The i3-7100H does not support ECC.

Q: Which memory types and bus configurations do they use?

A: The i3-7100H supports DDR3 and DDR4 on a dual-channel bus. The Xeon W3565 supports DDR3 only, but on a triple-channel bus, a signature feature of its platform generation.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from fundamentally different design eras. The Xeon W3565 belongs to the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, built on Intel's 45 nm process. The Core i3-7100H is a Kaby Lake design (codename Kaby Lake-H) manufactured on the much newer 14 nm node. That node difference is the single most consequential fact in this comparison: nearly a decade of process refinement lets the mobile part deliver comparable throughput at a fraction of the power draw.

The Xeon counters with sheer scale per die. Its 263 mm² die packs 731 million transistors, more than double the i3-7100H's 126 mm² die area (transistor count is not recorded for the Kaby Lake part). It carries 4 cores and 8 threads against the i3's 2 cores and 4 threads, and its shared L3 cache of 8 MB more than doubles the i3's 3 MB. Per-core L1 and L2 allocations are identical, 64 KB and 256 KB respectively, which makes the comparison unusually clean at that level: same per-core cache structure, doubled core count on one side, doubled per-core efficiency on the other.

Clock behavior also differs in kind, not just degree. The i3-7100H runs a fixed 2.80 GHz with no boost clock recorded. The Xeon W3565 starts at a 3.20 GHz base and can reach a 3.47 GHz boost. In other words, the older, larger, hotter chip actually clocks higher, which makes the i3's clean sweep of the benchmark table more striking: the newer architecture extracts more work per megahertz despite the frequency disadvantage.

Feature sets diverge along market lines. The Xeon W3565 supports ECC memory and rides a triple-channel DDR3 bus, both server-class characteristics. It offers PCIe Gen 2 lanes and has no integrated graphics. The i3-7100H skips ECC, uses a dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 controller, provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes, and integrates Intel HD Graphics 630, a meaningful advantage for any system without a discrete GPU. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

Strictly on the recorded data, the Core i3-7100H wins everywhere. Five tests, five wins, zero losses, with single-core and multi-core margins clustered tightly between 1.5 and 1.8 percent. The multi-core result is the genuinely interesting one: a 2-core, 4-thread mobile chip matching and slightly beating a 4-core, 8-thread workstation CPU in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core runs. Benchmark results indicate that Kaby Lake's per-thread throughput, fed by a modern dual-channel DDR4-capable memory subsystem, fully offsets the Bloomfield part's doubled parallelism.

The Xeon W3565's victories are platform-level rather than benchmark-level. Where it wins on paper is in recorded specifications: core count, thread count, L3 cache capacity, ECC support, triple-channel memory, and higher clock speeds. None of those translate into a single recorded benchmark win, which is itself a data point about how architectural progress compounds. Its 130 W TDP versus the i3's 35 W TDP means the Xeon needs roughly 3.7 times the thermal envelope to arrive at the same destination.

For contexts the benchmark suite does not measure, the spec sheet still matters. A workload that specifically requires ECC memory has exactly one option here, and it is the Xeon. A build that needs integrated graphics has exactly one option too, and it is the i3-7100H.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every recorded field:

• Cores/Threads: 2 cores, 4 threads (i3-7100H) versus 4 cores, 8 threads (W3565)
• Base Clock: 2.80 GHz versus 3.20 GHz
• Boost Clock: none recorded versus 3.47 GHz
• TDP: 35 W versus 130 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1440 versus Intel Socket 1366, meaning neither is a drop-in alternative to the other and the Xeon is socketed while the mobile part is soldered
• Architecture/Codename: Kaby Lake (Kaby Lake-H) versus Nehalem (Bloomfield)
• Process Node: 14 nm versus 45 nm
• Die Size: 126 mm² versus 263 mm²
• L3 Cache: 3 MB shared versus 8 MB shared
• Memory Support: DDR3 and DDR4 versus DDR3 only
• Memory Bus: Dual-channel versus Triple-channel
• ECC: no versus yes
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 CPU lanes versus Gen 2
• Integrated Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 630 versus none
• Market Segment: Mobile versus Server/Workstation
• Release Date: January 2017 versus October 2009
• Launch MSRP: $225 for the i3-7100H; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Xeon W3565
• Part Numbers: SR32T versus SLBEV

Both are end-of-life, both come from Intel's own fabs, and both have locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Walking through the recorded results, the pattern is immediate and unbroken.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-7100H scores 295 against the Xeon's 290, a 1.7 percent win. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the story: 1231 versus 1212, 1.6 percent. Cinebench R23 multi-core closes the set at 2932 versus 2888, 1.5 percent. Consider what those numbers say. The Xeon fields twice the threads and more than twice the L3 cache, yet finishes behind in every multi-threaded render. The data implies its 45 nm cores simply cannot keep pace with Kaby Lake cores on a per-thread basis, and the shortfall compounds across the whole workload.

The single-core results explain why. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i3-7100H posts 173 against 170, a 1.8 percent lead, and in R23 single-core it scores 414 versus 407, 1.7 percent ahead. The i3's single-thread advantage is essentially the same size as its multi-thread advantage. If the Xeon's extra cores were contributing meaningfully beyond the i3's SMT threads, the multi-core gap should narrow or flip; it does neither. Benchmark results indicate the two chips trade blow for blow per thread, and the i3's modest per-thread edge carries straight through to aggregate throughput.

Context from the wider database reinforces how evenly matched these two are. The i3-7100H's nearest rivals include the Intel Processor N100 (average score 1007, 0.2 percent away), the Core i5-10210Y (1006, 0.3 percent), the Core i7-2675QM (1012, 0.3 percent), and the Xeon W5580 (1012, 0.3 percent). The W3565's neighborhood includes the Core i7-965 (993, dead even), the Phenom II X6 1065T (993, dead even), the Core i7-960 (993, dead even), and the Core i3-8130U (994, 0.1 percent). Both CPUs sit in a dense cluster of parts separated by fractions of a percent, at the 28th and 27th percentiles respectively.

The Verdict

The data renders a clean verdict: the Core i3-7100H is the faster processor in every recorded test, however narrow the margins. It delivers the same measured performance as the Xeon W3565 while using 35 W instead of 130 W, occupying less than half the die area on a far denser process node, and adding modern amenities the Xeon lacks: PCIe Gen 3, DDR4 support, and integrated HD Graphics 630. For anyone choosing between these two on benchmark evidence alone, the i3-7100H is the pick.

The Xeon W3565 still has two defensible use cases in the recorded data. It is the only one of the pair supporting ECC memory, which can be decisive for stability-critical workloads, and its 8-thread capacity plus 8 MB of shared L3 may suit software that scales with thread count in ways Cinebench does not capture. It is also the only socketed option, on Socket 1366, whereas the i3-7100H is soldered to its BGA 1440 board.

But those are niche arguments. The broader lesson of this matchup is architectural: eight years of process and design advancement let a 2-core mobile chip match a 4-core workstation flagship while drawing roughly a quarter of the power. For general compute, the numbers point to the Core i3-7100H every time.