CPU Comparison

# Intel Xeon W5580 vs Intel Core i3-7100H: A Benchmark Database Analysis

The Intel Xeon W5580 and Intel Core i3-7100H are two processors that appear to be near-identical in benchmark performance, yet they represent fundamentally different design philosophies and market segments. The data shows the Xeon W5580 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but by margins so small (0.2% to 0.6%) that they are effectively negligible in real-world use. Both processors sit at the 28th percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 1012 and 1009 respectively. The Xeon W5580 is a server/workstation part from the Nehalem era, while the Core i3-7100H is a mobile processor built on Kaby Lake architecture. This comparison reveals how far mobile processors have come, as a 2-core/4-thread chip from 2017 can essentially match a 4-core/8-thread server chip from 2009 in modern rendering workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W5580 wins every single benchmark comparison in the data set, but the margins are remarkably narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon W5580 scores 296 against the Core i3-7100H's 295, a difference of just 0.3%. The single-core results tell a similar story: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon leads 174 to 173, a 0.6% advantage that represents the largest delta in any test. The multicore Cinebench R20 result shows 1234 versus 1231, a 0.2% edge, while Cinebench R23 multicore has the Xeon ahead 2940 to 2932, again a 0.3% gap. Even in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon's 415 barely edges out the Core i3's 414.

The practical interpretation is that neither processor has a meaningful performance advantage in these workloads. The Xeon W5580's theoretical advantage in core count (4 cores versus 2) and threads (8 versus 4) appears to be offset by the Core i3-7100H's much newer architecture and higher instructions-per-clock efficiency. The Core i3-7100H also has a clear advantage in power efficiency, with a 35W TDP compared to the Xeon's 130W, a factor that matters enormously in mobile applications. The data shows that the i3-7100H achieves essentially identical Cinebench scores while using roughly a quarter of the power budget.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans eight years of Intel development. The Xeon W5580 uses the Nehalem architecture (codename Gainestown) built on a 45nm process node, while the Core i3-7100H uses Kaby Lake architecture (codename Kaby Lake-H) on a 14nm process. The Xeon packs 731 million transistors into a 263 mm² die, whereas the Core i3-7100H fits into a much smaller 126 mm² die, though the fact pack does not list its transistor count.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The Xeon W5580 has 4 cores and 8 threads with a 3.20 GHz base clock and 3.47 GHz boost clock. The Core i3-7100H has 2 cores and 4 threads with a 2.80 GHz base clock and no boost clock listed. Despite having half the cores and threads, the i3-7100H matches the Xeon's performance in Cinebench tests, demonstrating the efficiency gains from the newer architecture.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache tells a different story: the Xeon W5580 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i3-7100H has only 3 MB. The Xeon's larger cache is a legacy of its server heritage, but it does not translate into a performance advantage in these particular benchmarks. Memory support diverges as well, the Xeon uses DDR3 with triple-channel memory and 32.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i3-7100H supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with dual-channel memory (bandwidth not listed). The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core i3 does not. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i3-7100H uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core i3-7100H includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 630; the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a consistent but trivial pattern of Xeon W5580 victories. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 296 against the i3-7100H's 295, a 0.3% advantage. This is the test where the Xeon's 4-core/8-thread configuration should theoretically shine, yet the 2-core/4-thread i3-7100H comes within one point. The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a similar story: 1234 versus 1231, a 0.2% edge for the Xeon.

Single-core performance is where the i3-7100H's newer architecture should give it an advantage, but the data shows the opposite. The Xeon W5580 wins Cinebench R20 single-core 174 to 173, a 0.6% margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon leads 415 to 414, a 0.2% advantage. These results suggest that the Xeon's higher base clock (3.20 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) compensates for any architectural efficiency disadvantage in the older Nehalem design.

The Cinebench R23 multicore result is the largest absolute gap in the entire comparison: 2940 versus 2932, a 0.3% difference. Across all five tests, the deltas range from 0.2% to 0.6%, with an average difference that rounds to essentially zero. The nearestRivals data reinforces this picture: the Xeon W5580's closest rival is the Core i3-7100H itself, with a delta of 0.3%, while the i3-7100H's nearest rival is the Xeon W5580 at -0.3%. Both processors also sit within 0.5% of the Intel Processor N100 and within 0.2% of the Intel Core i7-2675QM, placing them in a tight cluster of mid-range performers.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon W5580 wins all multi-core Cinebench tests, but by margins of only 0.2% to 0.3%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 2940 versus the Core i3-7100H's 2932.

Q: Does the Core i3-7100H win any benchmark?

A: No. The data shows the Xeon W5580 winning all five head-to-head comparisons. The Core i3-7100H's closest result is a 0.2% deficit in Cinebench R20 multicore and R23 single-core.

Q: How do their core counts affect performance?

A: The Xeon W5580 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-7100H has only 2 cores and 4 threads. Despite this 2x core advantage, the Xeon's performance lead is under 1% in every test, indicating that the i3-7100H's newer Kaby Lake architecture provides substantially higher per-core efficiency.

Q: Which processor is more power-efficient?

A: The Core i3-7100H has a 35W TDP compared to the Xeon W5580's 130W TDP. This means the i3-7100H achieves nearly identical benchmark scores while drawing less than a third of the power, making it vastly more efficient.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Xeon W5580 supports DDR3 memory with triple-channel configuration and 32.0 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i3-7100H supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with dual-channel configuration; its memory bandwidth is not listed in the data.

Q: Do either of these processors have integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i3-7100H includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD Graphics 630. The Xeon W5580 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for server/workstation processors.

The Verdict

The data makes one thing clear: there is no meaningful performance winner in this comparison. The Xeon W5580 technically wins all five Cinebench benchmarks, but its largest margin is 0.6% in single-core performance, and its multicore advantages range from 0.2% to 0.3%. These differences would be imperceptible in any real-world application. The Core i3-7100H matches a processor with twice its core count and twice its thread count, which speaks to the massive architectural improvements Intel made between 2009 and 2017.

For a server or workstation workload where ECC memory support and triple-channel bandwidth matter, the Xeon W5580 is the appropriate choice. Its 8 MB of L3 cache and 32.0 GB/s memory bandwidth serve workstation-class tasks that benefit from those features. However, this processor is end-of-life, uses Socket 1366, and demands a 130W power budget.

For mobile or compact systems, the Core i3-7100H is the obvious pick. It delivers benchmark scores within 0.6% of the Xeon while using a 35W TDP, supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, includes integrated graphics, and uses PCIe Gen 3. The i3-7100H also comes with a much lower launch MSRP of $225 versus the Xeon's $1600. Neither processor offers an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a deciding factor.

The benchmark data suggests that the Core i3-7100H represents the better overall package for most users, given its efficiency and modern feature set. The Xeon W5580's only real advantages are its core count, larger L3 cache, ECC memory support, and triple-channel bandwidth, features that matter primarily in specific server environments. For general computing, the i3-7100H matches its performance at a fraction of the power draw.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W5580 | Intel Core i3-7100H |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.47 GHz | Not listed |

| TDP | 130W | 35W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Nehalem | Kaby Lake |

| Codename | Gainestown | Kaby Lake-H |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 126 mm² |

| Transistors | 731 million | Not listed |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR3, DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.0 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $1600 | $225 |

| Part Number | SLBF2 | SR32T |