Intel Core i3-8109U vs Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 Comparison

The Intel Core i3-8109U and the Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 are two very different processors that land at nearly the same average benchmark score, but they achieve that parity through opposite strategies. The Core i3-8109U is a mobile chip that wins decisively on single-core performance, while the Xeon E3-1235L v5 is a server/workstation part that dominates multi-core workloads. The data shows the Xeon wins 5 of 6 head-to-head benchmark tests, yet its average score of 1232 is just 0.2% behind the Core i3's 1235, making the choice between them a question of workload, not raw capability.

Where Each One Wins

The workload split is stark and consistent across every benchmark category. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 is the clear multi-core champion, winning all three Cinebench multi-core tests by a nearly identical margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 429 against the Core i3's 357, a 16.8% advantage. That margin repeats in Cinebench R20 (1789 vs 1488) and Cinebench R23 (4261 vs 3544), both also showing a 16.8% lead. This is a processor built for sustained parallel workloads, and the data reflects that design intent.

The Core i3-8109U has exactly one benchmark win, but it is a dramatic one. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core i3 scores 138.65 versus the Xeon's 60, a staggering 131.1% advantage. That is not a small edge; it is more than double the performance. This single-core dominance is the Core i3's entire value proposition. For applications that rely on one thread — legacy software, lightly threaded games, or interactive responsiveness — the Core i3 is the only choice between these two.

The Xeon's single-core scores are notably weak. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 252 versus the Core i3's 210, giving the Xeon a 16.7% win, but that is a reversal from the R15 result. The Xeon wins R20 and R23 single-core by 16.7% and 16.8% respectively, yet loses R15 single-core by 131.1%. This inconsistency suggests the Xeon's single-core performance is highly dependent on the specific workload, while the Core i3 is more consistent. To summarize: multi-core workloads go to the Xeon, single-core workloads go to the Core i3, and the margins are large in both directions.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different Intel architectures and are built for different markets. The Core i3-8109U is a Kaby Lake-R part on a 14 nm process with a die size of 123 mm². It has 2 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 is a Skylake-DT part on the same 14 nm process but with a slightly smaller die at 122 mm². It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. The Xeon has twice the physical cores but no hyper-threading, while the Core i3 has half the cores but hyper-threading, giving both 4 threads total.

Cache allocation is a major differentiator. The Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, exactly double the Core i3's 4 MB. Both have identical L1 and L2 caches per core: 64 KB and 256 KB respectively. The Xeon also carries 1,750 million transistors, while the Core i3's transistor count is not listed in the data. This larger cache and transistor budget supports the Xeon's multi-core ambitions.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with dual-channel memory and a listed memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server and workstation reliability. The Core i3 supports only DDR4 and does not support ECC. The Xeon's socket is Intel Socket 1151, while the Core i3 uses Intel BGA 1356, meaning the Xeon is socketed and replaceable while the Core i3 is soldered to the board.

Integrated graphics also differ. The Core i3 uses Iris Pro Plus, while the Xeon has HD Graphics P530. The Xeon's graphics are sufficient for basic display output but are not the focus of a server part. The Core i3's Iris Pro Plus is a more capable integrated solution, though the data does not provide benchmark scores for either. Production status tells a story too: the Core i3 is marked Active, while the Xeon is End-of-life.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1235L v5 wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. It scores 429 vs 357 in R15, 1789 vs 1488 in R20, and 4261 vs 3544 in R23, each a 16.8% advantage over the Core i3-8109U.

Q: Is the Core i3-8109U better for single-core tasks?

A: In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core i3 wins decisively with a score of 138.65 against the Xeon's 60, a 131.1% lead. However, the Xeon wins R20 single-core (252 vs 210) and R23 single-core (601 vs 500), both by 16.7-16.8%.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of threads?

A: Yes, both have 4 threads. The Core i3-8109U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E3-1235L v5 has 4 cores and 4 threads with no hyper-threading.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E3-1235L v5 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-8109U does not, and it only supports DDR4 while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Core i3-8109U has an average benchmark score of 1235, and the Xeon E3-1235L v5 scores 1232. The Core i3 is 0.2% ahead in this metric.

Q: Which processor is still in production?

A: The Core i3-8109U is marked as Active in production status. The Xeon E3-1235L v5 is listed as End-of-life.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Core i3-8109U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E3-1235L v5 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 3.00 GHz for the Core i3 versus 2000.00 MHz (2.00 GHz) for the Xeon, and boost clocks are 3.60 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. The Core i3 has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Xeon has a lower TDP of 25 watts. Sockets differ: the Core i3 uses Intel BGA 1356, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151.

Cache is a clear divider. The Core i3 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon has 8 MB. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The Xeon has 1,750 million transistors and a die size of 122 mm²; the Core i3's transistor count is not listed, and its die size is 123 mm². Memory support differs: the Core i3 supports only DDR4, while the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4. The Xeon has dual-channel memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i3's memory bus and bandwidth are not listed. ECC memory support is present only on the Xeon. Integrated graphics differ: Iris Pro Plus on the Core i3 versus HD Graphics P530 on the Xeon. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i3's PCIe configuration is not listed. Release dates are April 4, 2018 for the Core i3 and October 18, 2015 for the Xeon. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $250; the Core i3 has no listed launch MSRP. The Xeon has a part number of SR2LM; the Core i3's part number is not listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E3-1235L v5 dominates the multi-core tests with a consistent 16.8% margin across all three Cinebench versions. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 429 against the Core i3's 357. In R20, the score is 1789 versus 1488. In R23, it is 4261 versus 3544. The deltas are uniform at -16.8% for the Core i3 in each case, indicating that the Xeon's 4 physical cores provide a steady advantage over the Core i3's 2 cores with hyper-threading, regardless of the benchmark version.

The single-core results are inconsistent and reveal the Core i3's one clear triumph. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Core i3 scores 138.65 versus the Xeon's 60. That is a 131.1% win for the Core i3, the largest margin in any test. But the Xeon flips the script in R20 and R23 single-core. In R20, the Xeon scores 252 against the Core i3's 210, a 16.7% win. In R23, the Xeon scores 601 against 500, a 16.8% win. The Xeon's R15 single-core score of 60 looks anomalous given its R20 and R23 results, but the data is what it is. The Core i3's single-core lead is real only in R15, while the Xeon holds a consistent single-core lead in the newer tests.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story of near-parity. The Core i3 averages 1235, and the Xeon averages 1232, a 0.2% difference. Both processors sit at the 34th percentile of all CPUs. The nearest rivals for both are identical in composition, with the Pentium Gold G6600 matching the Core i3's score exactly at 1235 and the Core i7-3610QM leading both by 0.8%. This places the two CPUs in the same performance tier overall, even though their workload profiles could not be more different.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion: choose the Xeon E3-1235L v5 for multi-core work, and choose the Core i3-8109U for single-core work in legacy benchmarks. The Xeon wins 5 of 6 head-to-head tests, including all multi-core tests and the two newer single-core tests. Its 4 cores and 8 MB of L3 cache deliver a consistent 16.8% advantage in parallel workloads, and its ECC memory support and dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 compatibility make it the appropriate choice for server or workstation duties.

The Core i3-8109U is the mobile-focused alternative. Its 28-watt TDP is only slightly higher than the Xeon's 25 watts, but it comes in a BGA 1356 package, indicating a soldered, non-upgradeable installation. Its single-core win in Cinebench R15 is massive at 131.1%, but it loses the newer R20 and R23 single-core tests by 16.7-16.8%. For users running applications that are stuck on older single-threaded benchmarks, the Core i3 has a clear edge. For anything modern, the Xeon is the stronger processor.

The Xeon's End-of-life production status is a practical concern, while the Core i3 remains Active. If availability matters, the Core i3 is the safer bet. But for raw multi-core performance, the Xeon's 16.8% lead in every multi-core test is the defining statistic. The average scores are nearly identical, but the workload profiles are not. This is a case where the aggregate number hides the true character of each chip.