Intel Core i3-8145U vs Intel Xeon W3550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is remarkably consistent across every workload recorded in the database: the Intel Core i3-8145U wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with deltas clustered tightly between 15.0% and 15.4%. This is not a case of one chip excelling in a single niche; the mobile dual-core outperforms the older workstation quad-core across the board.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i3-8145U scores 322 against 279 for the Xeon W3550, a 15.4% advantage, the largest single delta in the dataset. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1342 versus 1166, a 15.1% margin. Single-core results are equally decisive. The i3-8145U posts 189 in R20 single-core versus 164, a 15.2% lead, and in R23 single-core it scores 451 against 392, another 15.1% gap. The R23 multi-core run puts the i3-8145U at 3196 versus 2778, a 15.0% difference.

What stands out is how uniform the margins are. The i3-8145U does not merely win on multi-threaded workloads where its four threads might be expected to struggle against the Xeon's eight threads; it also wins every single-threaded test by nearly the same percentage. This suggests a generational efficiency advantage that offsets the core and thread deficit. The Xeon W3550 never comes within 15 points of the i3-8145U in any recorded test, and neither chip shows a workload where the other is competitive.

For context, the average benchmark score in the database places the i3-8145U at 941 with a 25th percentile rank among all CPUs, while the Xeon W3550 sits at 956 with a 26th percentile rank. Despite the Xeon holding a slightly higher aggregate score, the head-to-head results show the i3-8145U winning every direct comparison. The Xeon's closest rivals, the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 and the Intel Core i7-950 at 957, bracket it within 0.1%, but the i3-8145U's own rivals, such as the Intel Core i5-4330M at 938, come within 0.3% on the downside. The data shows a clear winner, and it is not close in any test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is vast, and it explains the benchmark outcomes. The Core i3-8145U is built on Whiskey Lake, a 10 nm process node, while the Xeon W3550 uses Nehalem on a 45 nm process. The i3-8145U packs 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, though the Xeon's die size is not recorded in the database. The i3-8145U is a dual-core design with four threads, whereas the Xeon W3550 offers four cores and eight threads. Cache layouts differ sharply: both have 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, but the L3 cache jumps from 4 MB shared on the i3-8145U to 8 MB shared on the Xeon.

The i3-8145U's memory controller supports DDR4 with dual-channel access and a measured bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon W3550 uses DDR3 with triple-channel access and no bandwidth figure recorded in the database. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature the i3-8145U lacks entirely. PCIe support differs, with the i3-8145U offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU side, versus the Xeon W3550's Gen 2 support. The i3-8145U integrates integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 620, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics option in the database.

The socket situation underscores the segmentation: the i3-8145U uses Intel BGA 1528 and targets the mobile market segment, while the Xeon W3550 uses Intel Socket 1366 and targets the server and workstation segment. Both are end-of-life products, with the i3-8145U launching on 2018-09-30 and the Xeon W3550 launching on 2009-08-08. Only the i3-8145U has a recorded launch MSRP of $281. The i3-8145U's generation is listed as Core i3 (Whiskey Lake), while the Xeon W3550 is listed as Xeon (Bloomfield). The i3-8145U's part number is SRFFZSRD1WSRD1V, and the Xeon W3550's is SLBEY. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The most consequential differences are the process node, the core count, and the memory configuration. The i3-8145U compensates for fewer cores with a 10 nm process and a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz against the Xeon's 3.33 GHz, while the Xeon's base clock of 3.07 GHz is higher than the i3-8145U's 2.10 GHz. The thermal design power tells the rest of the story: the i3-8145U is rated at 15 W, while the Xeon W3550 is rated at 130 W. The Xeon draws far more power for its older architecture, yet still loses every benchmark.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i3-8145U wins every multi-core benchmark in the database. It scores 322 versus 279 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1342 versus 1166 in R20 multi-core, and 3196 versus 2778 in R23 multi-core, with deltas of 15.4%, 15.1%, and 15.0% respectively.

Q: Does the Xeon W3550 have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The i3-8145U wins single-core tests as well, scoring 189 versus 164 in R20 single-core and 451 versus 392 in R23 single-core, both around 15.1% ahead.

Q: Why does the i3-8145U win despite having fewer cores and threads?

A: The i3-8145U uses a 10 nm process node versus 45 nm for the Xeon, and it has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz against 3.33 GHz. The i3-8145U also has a much lower thermal design power of 15 W versus 130 W, indicating far better efficiency per watt, though the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads versus 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Do the chips support different memory types?

A: Yes. The i3-8145U supports DDR4 with dual-channel access and a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon W3550 supports DDR3 with triple-channel access and no recorded bandwidth figure. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i3-8145U does not.

Q: What is the difference in integrated graphics?

A: The i3-8145U includes Intel UHD Graphics 620 as its integrated graphics solution. The Xeon W3550 has no integrated graphics capability listed in the database.

Q: How do the two compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The i3-8145U has an average benchmark score of 941 and falls within 0.4% of its nearest rivals, such as the AMD A8-7670K at 944 and the AMD Athlon X4 860K at 943. The Xeon W3550 averages 956 and sits within 0.1% of the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 and the Intel Xeon W3570 at 955.

Specification Differences

The following recorded specifications differ between the Intel Core i3-8145U and the Intel Xeon W3550:

• Cores: 2 versus 4
• Threads: 4 versus 8
• Base clock: 2.10 GHz versus 3.07 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.90 GHz versus 3.33 GHz
• Thermal design power: 15 W versus 130 W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1528 versus Intel Socket 1366
• Architecture: Whiskey Lake versus Nehalem
• Codename: Whiskey Lake-U versus Bloomfield
• Generation: Core i3 (Whiskey Lake) versus Xeon (Bloomfield)
• Process node: 10 nm versus 45 nm
• Transistors: not recorded versus 731 million
• Die size: not recorded versus 263 mm²
• L3 cache: 4 MB shared versus 8 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4 versus DDR3
• Memory bus: Dual-channel versus Triple-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 38.4 GB/s versus not recorded
• ECC memory: false versus true
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) versus Gen 2
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 620 versus none
• Market segment: Mobile versus Server/Workstation
• Release date: 2018-09-30 versus 2009-08-08
• Launch MSRP: $281 versus not recorded
• Part number: SRFFZSRD1WSRD1V versus SLBEY

The L1 and L2 cache sizes are identical at 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core respectively. Both processors are end-of-life, both are manufactured by Intel, both have locked multipliers, and neither records a series name.

The Verdict

The data points to one clear choice for almost any scenario: the Intel Core i3-8145U. It wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, whether multi-core or single-core, with margins consistently around 15%. The i3-8145U delivers this performance at a 15 W thermal design power, a fraction of the Xeon W3550's 130 W, and includes integrated graphics, DDR4 memory support, and a newer 10 nm process. The Xeon W3550 offers more cores and threads, ECC memory support, and triple-channel DDR3, but none of those translate into a performance win in the recorded data. The Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads are not enough to overcome the i3-8145U's architectural efficiency and higher boost clock.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark results, the i3-8145U is the better pick. It also suits mobile applications, given its market segment, integrated graphics, and low power draw. The Xeon W3550 remains relevant only for workloads that specifically require ECC memory, triple-channel DDR3, or a server and workstation platform, since the database shows no performance advantage for it. The i3-8145U's 25th percentile rank versus the Xeon's 26th percentile rank is effectively a tie in the broader CPU landscape, but the direct comparison is not a tie at all. The verdict from the measurements is unambiguous: the Core i3-8145U outperforms the Xeon W3550 across every recorded test, and it does so with far lower power consumption.