Intel Core i3-8100 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 and Intel Core i3-8100 represent two opposite ends of Intel’s product spectrum, yet both occupy the same 64th percentile in the overall CPU benchmark database. This shared percentile is where the similarities end. The Xeon Platinum 8268 is a 24-core, 48-thread Cascade Lake-SP server processor with a 205W TDP, while the Core i3-8100 is a 4-core, 4-thread Coffee Lake desktop chip with a 65W TDP and integrated UHD Graphics 630. The benchmark data reveals a staggering performance chasm, with the Xeon winning all six head-to-head comparisons by margins exceeding 660%. This analysis dissects the numbers, explores architectural drivers, and determines which user should select which processor based solely on measured results.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench suite provides a comprehensive look at both multi-core and single-core performance, and the results are lopsided in every category. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon Platinum 8268 scores 2897 against the i3-8100’s 379, a delta of 664.4%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar 669.8% advantage for the Xeon, with scores of 408 versus 53. This pattern repeats across every Cinebench version. The R20 multi-core test yields 12074 for the Xeon versus 1582 for the i3, a 663.2% difference. Single-core R20 shows 1704 against 223, a 664.1% gap. The R23 results continue the trend: multi-core 28749 versus 3769 (662.8% delta) and single-core 4058 versus 532 (662.8% delta).

What is striking is the consistency of the deltas. All six benchmarks show a difference between 662.8% and 669.8%, suggesting that the performance ratio is nearly uniform across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. This uniformity implies the Xeon’s advantage is not merely core-count driven but also stems from a fundamentally stronger per-core architecture at similar clock frequencies. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.90 GHz with a 3.90 GHz boost, while the i3-8100 runs at a fixed 3.60 GHz with no boost clock listed. Despite the i3’s higher base clock, the Xeon still wins single-core tests by over 660%, indicating that IPC (instructions per clock) differences and cache hierarchy play a decisive role.

The i3-8100 does have additional benchmark data outside the Cinebench suite, including Geekbench and Passmark tests. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 3458 and single-core 1214. Passmark results show a multi-thread score of 6086, single-thread of 2203, and specific workloads like integer math at 16191, floating-point math at 13774, and data compression at 82992. However, since the Xeon Platinum 8268 lacks corresponding data in these tests, direct head-to-head comparisons are limited to the six Cinebench runs. The absence of matching test data is itself informative — it suggests the Xeon’s benchmark profile is primarily focused on professional rendering workloads, while the i3’s broader test coverage reflects its desktop versatility.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the head-to-head data, the Xeon Platinum 8268 wins every single benchmark category. There is no test in the FACT PACK where the Core i3-8100 outperforms the Xeon. The Xeon’s 24 cores and 48 threads enable it to dominate multi-threaded rendering tasks, as evidenced by the 28749 R23 multi-core score versus 3769 for the i3. For users running Cinebench R23 as a proxy for 3D rendering, video encoding, or scientific simulation, the Xeon delivers roughly 7.6 times the throughput.

The single-core results are equally decisive. The Xeon’s 4058 R23 single-core score versus the i3’s 532 indicates that even in lightly-threaded applications like legacy software or spreadsheet calculations, the Xeon holds a massive advantage. This is counterintuitive given the i3’s higher 3.60 GHz base clock, but the data is unambiguous. The Xeon’s larger 35.75 MB shared L3 cache, versus the i3’s 6 MB, likely explains much of this single-core superiority by reducing memory latency.

Where the i3-8100 does appear to have a niche is in its broader benchmark coverage. The Passmark and Geekbench results for the i3, while not comparable to the Xeon, show respectable scores for a 4-core desktop chip. For instance, its Passmark data compression score of 82992 and integer math of 16191 suggest it can handle everyday computing tasks adequately. The i3 also has integrated UHD Graphics 630, enabling systems without discrete GPUs, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. However, in pure CPU compute, the Xeon wins 100% of the available comparisons.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors is vast. The Xeon Platinum 8268 uses the Cascade Lake-SP architecture on a 14 nm process node, fabricated by Intel with 8,000 million transistors. It features 24 cores and 48 threads, with a base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz. The cache hierarchy is generous: 64 KB L1 per core, 1 MB L2 per core, and 35.75 MB shared L3. It supports DDR4 memory with ECC enabled, targets the server/workstation market, and uses the Intel Socket 3647 platform. The TDP is 205W, reflecting its high core count and sustained performance capabilities.

In contrast, the Core i3-8100 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, also on a 14 nm process node, but with a die size of 126 mm² and no transistor count listed. It has just 4 cores and 4 threads, with a fixed 3.60 GHz clock and no boost capability. The cache is significantly smaller: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 6 MB shared L3. Memory support is DDR4 in dual-channel configuration with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC is supported. The chip includes UHD Graphics 630 integrated graphics and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. It uses the Intel Socket 1151 and has a 65W TDP. Its production status is listed as end-of-life, while the Xeon’s status is not specified.

The core count difference (24 versus 4) and thread count (48 versus 4) explain the massive multi-core gaps. However, the single-core gaps require deeper analysis. The Xeon’s 3.90 GHz boost clock is only 0.30 GHz higher than the i3’s fixed 3.60 GHz, yet it scores 662.8% higher in R23 single-core. This implies the Cascade Lake-SP core design is vastly more efficient per clock than Coffee Lake, or that the benchmark scores are influenced by the much larger L3 cache. The 35.75 MB shared L3 on the Xeon versus 6 MB on the i3 is a 5.96x difference, which could dramatically reduce cache misses and improve single-threaded latency-sensitive workloads.

Another key difference is the transistor count. The Xeon lists 8,000 million transistors, while the i3’s count is null in the FACT PACK. The Xeon’s higher transistor budget supports more cores, larger caches, and server-grade features. The i3’s smaller die and lack of listed transistor count indicate a simpler, more power-efficient design. The Xeon also lacks integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for display output, whereas the i3 includes UHD Graphics 630, making it a self-contained desktop solution.

The Verdict

The data unequivocally favors the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 for any performance-critical workload. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests by margins ranging from 662.8% to 669.8%. For users running Cinebench R23 multi-core as a benchmark for professional rendering, the Xeon’s 28749 score versus 3769 means it completes tasks nearly 7.6 times faster. The Xeon’s 24 cores and 48 threads, combined with 35.75 MB of L3 cache, make it the clear choice for server, workstation, and heavy compute environments. Its 205W TDP and Socket 3647 platform indicate it is designed for sustained multi-threaded loads in data centers or professional workstations.

The Core i3-8100, despite its lower performance, is not without merit. Its 65W TDP, integrated UHD Graphics 630, and Socket 1151 compatibility make it suitable for basic desktop builds, office productivity, or light multitasking. Its Passmark single-thread score of 2203 and Geekbench single-core of 1214 show it can handle everyday applications. However, for any task that appears in the head-to-head benchmarks, the i3 is decisively outperformed. The i3 also holds the distinction of having a launch MSRP of $117, while the Xeon has no listed launch MSRP.

From the data, the Xeon Platinum 8268 is the recommended choice for users prioritizing raw compute performance, particularly in multi-threaded rendering or scientific workloads. The Core i3-8100 is only viable for users with minimal performance requirements who benefit from its integrated graphics and low power draw. The 64th percentile ranking for both chips is notable, but it reflects the average of vastly different benchmark sets — the Xeon’s average score is 8315, while the i3’s is 8123, a narrow 2.4% difference that belies the massive gap in their head-to-head results.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 wins all 6 head-to-head benchmarks against the Core i3-8100. The i3-8100 records zero wins.

Q: What is the largest performance delta between the two?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon Platinum 8268 leads by 669.8%, scoring 408 versus 53.

Q: How does the core count compare between the two chips?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8268 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Core i3-8100 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 and the Intel Core i3-8100 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-8100 includes UHD Graphics 630, while the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8268 has an average benchmark score of 8315, while the Core i3-8100 has an average score of 8123.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 | Intel Core i3-8100 |

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

| Cores | 24 | 4 |

| Threads | 48 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | None |

| TDP | 205W | 65W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Cascade Lake | Coffee Lake |

| Codename | Cascade Lake-SP | Coffee Lake |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | Not listed | 126 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 35.75 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Not listed | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 38.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Not listed | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Production Status | Not listed | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2018-12-10 | 2017-10-04 |

| Part Number | SRF95CD8069504195101 | SR3N5 |