CPU Comparison
Intel Core i3-8130U
Xeon W3565
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i3-8130U vs Intel Xeon W3565
The Intel Core i3-8130U and the Intel Xeon W3565 are separated by nearly a decade of silicon evolution, yet they land in the same performance tier. The data shows a near-perfect tie in average benchmark score: the Core i3-8130U posts a 994 average against the Xeon W3565’s 993, a 0.1% difference. However, the head-to-head results are unanimous: the Core i3-8130U wins all five shared tests, with margins ranging from 3.7% to 4.1%. The Xeon W3565, a 2009-era server part, retains its multi-core advantage in core count but cannot overcome the architectural efficiency of the 2018 mobile chip. Both processors sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are entry-level performers by modern standards, but the data indicates the i3-8130U is the better choice for almost any workload that fits within its mobile power envelope.
The Verdict
From a pure performance standpoint, the Intel Core i3-8130U is the definitive winner. It outperforms the Xeon W3565 in every benchmark where both were tested, including the Cinebench R23 multi-core test, where the i3’s 2995 score beats the Xeon’s 2888 by 3.7%. This is despite the Xeon having twice the cores and twice the threads (4 cores/8 threads vs. 2 cores/4 threads) and a higher base clock (3.20 GHz vs. 2.40 GHz). The i3-8130U also offers integrated UHD 620 graphics, a 14 nm process, and DDR4 memory support, making it a far more versatile and modern part.
The Xeon W3565 is only relevant in one specific context: legacy server/workstation platforms that require ECC memory and a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus. Its boost clock of 3.47 GHz is marginally higher than the i3’s 3.40 GHz, but this does not translate into any benchmark win. For a new build or an upgrade, the i3-8130U is the clear pick. For someone maintaining an old Socket 1366 system with ECC requirements, the Xeon remains a functional, if outdated, option, but the data shows it offers no performance advantage over the much newer mobile chip.
Where Each One Wins
The Intel Core i3-8130U wins every head-to-head benchmark, so the "wins" section is straightforward. Its largest victory is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 177 against the Xeon’s 170, a 4.1% lead. This pattern repeats across all tests: the i3 wins by 3.8% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (301 vs. 290), 3.7% in R20 multi-core (1257 vs. 1212), 3.7% in R23 multi-core (2995 vs. 2888), and 3.7% in R23 single-core (422 vs. 407). The consistency of these margins suggests a fundamental architectural advantage, not a workload-specific quirk.
The Xeon W3565’s only "wins" are qualitative. It has a 130W TDP, which is far higher than the i3’s 15W, but that is a power draw, not a performance win. It supports ECC memory, which the i3 does not, making it suitable for error-correcting workloads. It also has double the L3 cache (8 MB vs. 4 MB) and a larger die (263 mm² vs. 123 mm²), but these hardware advantages do not translate into benchmark victories. In every measured metric, the i3-8130U is the faster processor.
Architecture Differences
The two chips come from completely different eras and design philosophies. The Core i3-8130U is built on Intel’s 14 nm Kaby Lake-R process, while the Xeon W3565 uses the 45 nm Nehalem (Bloomfield) architecture. This process gap is enormous: the i3 has a die size of 123 mm², while the Xeon’s die is 263 mm², and the Xeon packs 731 million transistors across that larger area. The i3 does not list a transistor count, but its smaller die and newer node imply higher density and efficiency.
Core configurations differ sharply. The Xeon W3565 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, a 2-core/4-thread advantage over the i3-8130U. The Xeon also runs at a higher base clock (3.20 GHz vs. 2.40 GHz) and a slightly higher boost clock (3.47 GHz vs. 3.40 GHz). However, the i3 compensates with architectural improvements. Both share the same L1 cache (64 KB per core) and L2 cache (256 KB per core), but the Xeon’s L3 cache is 8 MB shared versus the i3’s 4 MB shared. Memory support diverges: the i3 uses DDR4, while the Xeon uses DDR3 with a triple-channel bus. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i3.
Other differences are stark. The i3-8130U includes integrated UHD 620 graphics; the Xeon has none. The i3 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1356, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part on Socket 1366. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the i3 does not list a PCIe version in the data. The i3 was released in 2018 and is still active; the Xeon, released in 2009, is end-of-life. The Xeon’s part number is SLBEV, and its production status confirms it is no longer manufactured.
FAQ
Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?
A: The Intel Core i3-8130U wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2995 versus the Xeon W3565’s 2888, a 3.7% advantage. It also leads in R15 multi-core (301 vs. 290) and R20 multi-core (1257 vs. 1212).
Q: Does the Xeon W3565 have any performance advantage?
A: No. The Xeon W3565 does not win any of the five head-to-head benchmarks. Its only advantages are qualitative: ECC memory support, a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus, and a higher base clock of 3.20 GHz, which does not translate into benchmark wins.
Q: What is the difference in memory support?
A: The Core i3-8130U supports DDR4 memory and does not support ECC. The Xeon W3565 supports DDR3 memory via a triple-channel bus and does support ECC memory, making it suitable for error-correcting server workloads.
Q: Are these CPUs comparable in overall performance?
A: Yes, they are nearly identical on average. The i3-8130U has an average benchmark score of 994, while the Xeon W3565 scores 993, a 0.1% difference. Both sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs.
Q: Which CPU is more power-efficient?
A: The Core i3-8130U has a TDP of 15W, while the Xeon W3565 has a TDP of 130W. The i3 is a mobile part designed for low power, whereas the Xeon is a high-power server/workstation chip.
Q: Can I use the Xeon W3565 in a modern desktop?
A: The Xeon W3565 uses the Intel Socket 1366 and is end-of-life. The Core i3-8130U uses Intel BGA 1356, a mobile socket. Neither is compatible with modern mainstream desktop sockets, but the i3 is still an active production part.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The data is unambiguous: the Core i3-8130U wins all five shared benchmarks. The largest margin is 4.1% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i3 scores 177 against the Xeon’s 170. This single-core lead is consistent with the i3’s newer architecture, which delivers higher instructions per clock despite a lower boost clock (3.40 GHz vs. 3.47 GHz).
In multi-core tests, the i3’s wins are slightly smaller but still clear. Cinebench R15 multi-core shows the i3 at 301 versus the Xeon’s 290, a 3.8% margin. Cinebench R20 multi-core repeats the pattern with 1257 vs. 1212, a 3.7% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core also goes to the i3 by 3.7%, with scores of 2995 and 2888. The Xeon’s extra two cores and four threads cannot overcome the i3’s efficiency.
The single-core Cinebench R23 test shows a 3.7% win for the i3 (422 vs. 407). This is notable because the Xeon’s base clock is 3.20 GHz, significantly higher than the i3’s 2.40 GHz, yet the i3 still pulls ahead. The data suggests the i3’s 14 nm process and Kaby Lake architecture deliver better per-clock performance than the 45 nm Nehalem design. Across all tests, the average delta is approximately 3.8%, a consistent and decisive margin. The Xeon W3565 never comes within 3.5% of the i3 in any shared benchmark, confirming that the mobile chip is the superior performer in every measurable category.