Intel Core i3-8100 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5318N Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity about the division of labor between these two processors. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, taking all six Cinebench comparisons across R15, R20, and R23. The Intel Core i3-8100 does not register a single victory in any of the shared tests.

The Xeon Gold 5318N dominates in multi-threaded workloads, which is exactly what its design intends. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 29,155 against the Core i3-8100's 3,769, a gap of 673.5%. That kind of margin separates a workstation class part from a desktop part by an order of magnitude in raw throughput. The R20 multi-core result tells the same story: 12,245 versus 1,582, a 674% advantage.

What is more surprising is that the Xeon Gold 5318N also wins every single-core test, despite having a lower base clock of 2.10 GHz compared to the Core i3-8100's 3.60 GHz. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 4,116 against 532, a 673.7% lead. The same pattern holds in R15 single-core (414 versus 53, up 681.1%) and R20 single-core (1,728 versus 223, up 674.9%). The Core i3-8100 cannot claim even the traditional desktop advantage in lightly threaded tasks.

The Core i3-8100 does have additional benchmark results in the database that the Xeon Gold 5318N lacks, including Geekbench and Passmark tests. In those, the i3-8100 posts a Geekbench multi-core score of 3,458 and a single-core score of 1,214. Its Passmark multi-thread score is 6,086 and single-thread is 2,203. However, without corresponding Xeon results for those tests, the direct comparison remains limited to the Cinebench suite, where the Xeon is uniformly dominant.

The verdict from the recorded data is straightforward: the Xeon Gold 5318N wins every shared workload category, and the Core i3-8100 has no benchmark win to point to in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from entirely different design philosophies and manufacturing eras. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N is built on Ice Lake-SP architecture, using a 10 nm process node from Intel. The Core i3-8100 uses Coffee Lake architecture on Intel's 14 nm process. That process gap alone explains much of the efficiency difference, though the two chips are not competing for the same socket or system type.

The core counts separate them dramatically. The Xeon Gold 5318N has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Core i3-8100 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon has no hyperthreading disadvantage: it doubles its thread count, whereas the i3-8100 runs one thread per core. The Xeon's base clock is 2.10 GHz with a boost clock of 3.40 GHz. The Core i3-8100 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and no boost clock listed, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency.

Cache hierarchies also differ by design. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The Xeon Gold 5318N has 1 MB of L2 cache per core, while the Core i3-8100 has 256 KB per core. L3 cache is the biggest divider: the Xeon has 36 MB shared across all cores, while the i3-8100 has 6 MB shared. That sixfold difference in last-level cache directly supports the Xeon's much larger core count and memory demands.

Memory subsystems are in different leagues. The Xeon Gold 5318N supports DDR4 over an eight-channel memory bus with a bandwidth of 170.7 GB/s. The Core i3-8100 also supports DDR4 but over a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for the desktop part. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i3-8100 offers PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i3-8100 includes UHD Graphics 630.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon Gold 5318N uses Intel Socket 4189, the Core i3-8100 uses Intel Socket 1151. The Xeon targets the Server/Workstation market segment and remains in active production. The Core i3-8100 is a desktop part that is marked end-of-life in the database. Its die size is listed at 126 mm², while no die size is recorded for the Xeon.

The Verdict

The data points to one conclusion: these processors are not competitors, they are occupants of different performance tiers entirely. The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N is the correct choice for any workload that scales with core count, thread count, memory bandwidth, or PCIe lane availability. Its 24 cores and 48 threads, eight-channel memory with 170.7 GB/s bandwidth, and 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes make it a server or workstation part through and through. The Cinebench results confirm it delivers roughly 674% more multi-core performance than the Core i3-8100 in every version of the test.

The Core i3-8100 is a desktop processor with 4 cores and 4 threads, a dual-channel memory bus at 38.4 GB/s, and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. Its higher base clock of 3.60 GHz does not translate into a single-core win in any recorded benchmark. The Xeon Gold 5318N beats it in single-core tests by margins between 673.7% and 681.1%. That is not a close race; it is a categorical difference in instruction throughput per core, likely attributable to the newer architecture and much larger cache allocation.

For a user building or specifying a system, the choice depends entirely on the workload. If the task is multi-threaded rendering, heavy database work, virtualization, or any server-class application, the Xeon Gold 5318N is the only defensible pick from this data. If the workload is a basic desktop task that runs on a single thread, the Core i3-8100's lack of a win in any single-core benchmark means even that scenario favors the Xeon. The i3-8100 does have integrated graphics and a far lower 65 W TDP, which may matter for simple builds, but on raw recorded performance it loses every head-to-head test.

The average benchmark score in the database reflects the gap: the Xeon Gold 5318N averages 8,433, the Core i3-8100 averages 8,123. Both sit at the 64th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-8550U at 8,407 (0.3% behind) and the Intel Pentium Gold G7400 at 8,515 (1% ahead). The Core i3-8100's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M at 8,110 (0.2% behind) and the AMD EPYC 7302 at 8,139 (0.2% ahead). The average scores are close, but that is because the database averages across many test types; the shared Cinebench tests show no such closeness.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 5318N has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Intel Core i3-8100 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Core i3-8100 win any benchmark in this comparison?

A: No. The Xeon Gold 5318N wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 673.5% to 681.1%.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Xeon Gold 5318N supports 170.7 GB/s over an eight-channel DDR4 bus. The Core i3-8100 supports 38.4 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR4 bus.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Xeon Gold 5318N and the Core i3-8100 have ECC memory support listed in the database.

Q: What is the process node difference?

A: The Xeon Gold 5318N is built on Intel's 10 nm process with Ice Lake-SP architecture. The Core i3-8100 uses Intel's 14 nm process with Coffee Lake architecture.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-8100 includes UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon Gold 5318N has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What socket does each processor use?

A: The Xeon Gold 5318N uses Intel Socket 4189. The Core i3-8100 uses Intel Socket 1151.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results in the database cover six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon Gold 5318N wins all of them by enormous margins. The largest single advantage comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 414 against the Core i3-8100's 53, a 681.1% lead. That is the biggest delta in the entire set, and it is a single-threaded test, which is the category where a desktop chip with a 3.60 GHz base clock would normally be expected to compete.

The multi-core margins are similarly lopsided. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Gold 5318N scores 2,938 versus 379, a 675.2% advantage. In R20 multi-core, the scores are 12,245 and 1,582, a 674% gap. In R23 multi-core, the Xeon posts 29,155 against 3,769, up 673.5%. The consistency of these deltas, all hovering near 674%, indicates a stable performance ratio rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core has the Xeon at 1,728 and the i3-8100 at 223, a 674.9% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 4,116 versus 532, a 673.7% lead. Every delta falls between 673.5% and 681.1%, meaning the Xeon Gold 5318N outperforms the Core i3-8100 by a factor of roughly 7.7 to 7.8 across all recorded tests.

The Core i3-8100 does have additional benchmarks in the database that lack Xeon equivalents. Its Geekbench multi-core score is 3,458 and single-core is 1,214. In Passmark tests, it scores 82,992 in data compression, 1,828 in data encryption, 7,212 in extended instructions, 27 in find prime numbers, 13,774 in floating point math, 16,191 in integer math, 6,086 in multithread, 462 in physics, 10,150 in random string sorting, and 2,203 in single-thread. These numbers cannot be compared directly to the Xeon, which has no recorded results for those tests.

What the shared benchmarks demonstrate is that the Xeon Gold 5318N's advantage is not limited to heavily threaded workloads. The single-core wins rule out the possibility that the Core i3-8100's higher clock speed compensates for its older architecture. The Xeon's newer 10 nm process, larger per-core L2 cache, and 36 MB of shared L3 cache appear to deliver superior per-thread performance despite the lower base clock.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category recorded in the database.

The Xeon Gold 5318N has 24 cores and 48 threads. The Core i3-8100 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.10 GHz with a 3.40 GHz boost clock. The Core i3-8100 has a 3.60 GHz base clock and no boost clock listed. The Xeon has a TDP of 150 W, while the Core i3-8100 has a TDP of 65 W.

Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4189, the Core i3-8100 uses Intel Socket 1151. The Xeon is built on Ice Lake architecture at 10 nm, while the Core i3-8100 uses Coffee Lake at 14 nm. The Core i3-8100 has a recorded die size of 126 mm²; no die size is recorded for the Xeon.

Cache configurations differ per core and in total. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core. The Xeon has 1 MB of L2 per core, the Core i3-8100 has 256 KB per core. The Xeon has 36 MB of shared L3 cache, the Core i3-8100 has 6 MB.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the memory bus is eight-channel on the Xeon versus dual-channel on the Core i3-8100. Memory bandwidth is 170.7 GB/s for the Xeon and 38.4 GB/s for the Core i3-8100. Both support ECC memory. The Xeon provides PCIe Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only); the Core i3-8100 provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Core i3-8100, which includes UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. The Xeon targets the Server/Workstation market and is in active production. The Core i3-8100 targets the Desktop market and is end-of-life. The Core i3-8100 has a launch MSRP of $117; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Xeon. The Core i3-8100's part number is SR3N5. Both processors have locked multipliers.