Intel Core i3-8109U vs Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a clear split between multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads, with the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 winning five of the six compared tests. The most dramatic result comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Intel Core i3-8109U scores 138.65 against the Xeon’s 59, a massive 135% advantage. That is the single largest delta in the entire comparison, and it underscores how differently these two processors are built.

In multi-threaded Cinebench tests, the Xeon consistently leads by roughly 15%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 422 versus the i3’s 357, a -15.4% delta from the i3’s perspective. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1761 vs 1488, -15.5%) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (4193 vs 3544, -15.5%). The consistency of that margin across three generations of the Cinebench suite is notable — it suggests the Xeon’s advantage scales linearly with the workload’s thread demand, rather than being tied to any specific benchmark quirk.

The single-core results outside of R15 are closer but still favor the Xeon. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 248 against the i3’s 210, a -15.3% delta. In R23 single-core, the Xeon posts 591 versus 500, a -15.4% delta. This is surprising given the R15 result: the i3’s 135% win in R15 single-core is an outlier, while the R20 and R23 single-core tests show the Xeon ahead by about 15%. The R15 single-core score of 59 for the Xeon appears to be anomalously low, possibly reflecting a thermal or frequency limitation during that specific test run.

The i3’s only win is that R15 single-core test, but it is a decisive one. A 135% margin is not a marginal difference; it indicates that in short, lightly-threaded bursts, the i3 can far exceed the Xeon’s per-core throughput. However, the data also shows that this advantage does not persist into newer Cinebench versions, where the Xeon reclaims the lead. This mixed picture means neither processor is universally better; the winning choice depends entirely on workload type.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 wins every multi-core benchmark in the comparison. This is consistent with its hardware configuration: four physical cores without hyper-threading, but with a larger shared L3 cache and a higher base clock. The Xeon’s multi-core wins are all in the 15% range, which is substantial for production rendering, video encoding, or any workload that scales across all cores.

The Xeon also wins the newer single-core tests (R20 and R23), which suggests its architectural efficiency in Haswell is sufficient to beat the i3’s Kaby Lake cores in sustained single-threaded loads. The Xeon’s base clock of 3.10 GHz is only slightly higher than the i3’s 3.00 GHz base, but the i3 can boost to 3.60 GHz. Despite the i3’s higher boost capability, the Xeon still comes out ahead in R20 and R23 single-core, indicating that the Xeon’s per-core design is more robust under sustained load.

The Intel Core i3-8109U wins the R15 single-core test by a staggering margin, but this appears to be a workload-specific outcome. The i3’s 2-core/4-thread configuration with a 3.60 GHz boost clock is well-suited to short, bursty single-threaded tasks. For users running legacy software that relies on a single core for a brief period, the i3 would provide a snappier experience. The i3 also has integrated graphics (Iris Pro Plus), which the Xeon lacks entirely; for systems without a discrete GPU, the i3 is the only viable option.

In terms of overall positioning, the Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1212, while the i3’s is 1235 — the i3 actually holds a slight edge in aggregate performance. Both processors sit at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are statistically equivalent in overall capability. The Xeon wins raw throughput tests, but the i3’s balanced profile (including its iGPU and lower power requirements) makes it competitive in everyday scenarios.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel eras and serve different market segments. The Intel Core i3-8109U is a Kaby Lake-R mobile chip built on Intel’s 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. Its thermal design power is 28 watts, and it uses the Intel BGA 1356 socket. The i3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR4 memory but does not support ECC. It includes integrated Iris Pro Plus graphics and is classified as a mobile part. The i3’s release date is April 2018, and it remains in active production.

The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 is a Haswell-EP server/workstation chip built on Intel’s 22 nm process, with a much larger die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. It has 4 cores and 4 threads (no hyper-threading), with a base clock of 3.10 GHz and no boost clock. Its thermal design power is 140 watts, and it uses the Intel Socket 2011-3. The Xeon has the same 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but its L3 cache is 10 MB shared — 2.5 times larger than the i3’s. It supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. It has no integrated graphics. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). Its release date is September 2014, and it is now end-of-life.

The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 22 nm. The smaller node generally allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, which explains why the i3 achieves a comparable boost clock (3.60 GHz) at a much lower TDP (28 W vs 140 W). However, the Xeon’s larger die and higher transistor count (2,600 million vs unspecified for the i3) enable more cores and a larger cache. The Xeon’s quad-channel memory controller and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth are workstation-class features that the i3 lacks entirely.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i3-8109U has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 has no boost clock (its base clock is 3.10 GHz).

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1607 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-1607 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i3-8109U does not.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-1607 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i3-8109U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: How many PCIe lanes does the Xeon provide?

A: The Xeon E5-1607 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only). The Core i3-8109U’s PCIe configuration is not listed in the data.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i3-8109U includes Iris Pro Plus integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-1607 v3 has no integrated graphics.

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 E5-1607 v3 has an average of 1212, a difference of 23 points in favor of the i3.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Core i3-8109U | Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 |

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

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.00 GHz | 3.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | None |

| TDP | 28 W | 140 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1356 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Haswell |

| Codename | Kaby Lake-R | Haswell-EP |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 123 mm² | 356 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 2,600 million |

| L3 Cache | 4 MB (shared) | 10 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Not listed | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Not listed | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris Pro Plus | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2018-04-04 | 2014-09-07 |

| Part Number | Not listed | QGDASR20M |

The Verdict

The data presents a straightforward choice for most users. The Intel Xeon E5-1607 v3 is the clear winner for any workload that uses multiple cores, leading by approximately 15% across all three Cinebench multi-core tests. Its four physical cores, 10 MB of L3 cache, and quad-channel memory support make it a capable workstation part for rendering, simulation, or server-side tasks. It also supports ECC memory, which is a hard requirement for many professional and reliability-focused environments. The Xeon’s 140 W TDP and lack of integrated graphics mean it belongs in a desktop or server chassis with a discrete GPU and robust cooling.

The Intel Core i3-8109U is the better choice for mobile or compact systems where power efficiency and integrated graphics matter. Its 28 W TDP and BGA 1356 socket indicate a soldered laptop or mini-PC design, not a user-upgradeable desktop. Its 135% win in Cinebench R15 single-core shows it can outperform the Xeon in short, single-threaded bursts, which benefits everyday application launch times and responsive UI interactions. The i3’s higher average benchmark score (1235 vs 1212) also suggests it is slightly more balanced overall.

For a user building a new workstation with ECC memory and multi-threaded performance as a priority, the Xeon is the data-backed pick. For a user who needs a low-power, mobile-capable chip with integrated graphics and can accept lower multi-core throughput, the i3 is the appropriate selection. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and the i3’s active production status also suggest that the i3 has a longer future in terms of availability and support, though the Xeon’s larger core count and cache give it a performance edge in sustained compute tasks. There is no universal winner; the correct processor depends entirely on the workload and system constraints.