Intel Core i3-8300 vs Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel Core i3-8300 across every Cinebench workload in the comparison. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Core i3-8300 scored 545 against the Xeon E5-1428L v2's 535, a lead of 1.9%. The single-core result in the same suite was closer: 76 versus 75, a 1.3% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core gap widened slightly to 1.7% with scores of 2271 and 2232, while the single-core test showed 320 against 315, a 1.6% difference. The most recent workload, Cinebench R23, repeated the pattern: the Core i3-8300 posted 5408 in multi-core versus 5316 for the Xeon, and 763 versus 750 in single-core, both translating to a 1.7% delta.

What stands out is the uniformity of these results. The Core i3-8300 wins all six head-to-head tests, but no single benchmark shows a double-digit percentage advantage. The largest margin is the 1.9% in R15 multi-core; the smallest is the 1.3% in R15 single-core. This suggests the two processors are closely matched in raw rendering throughput, despite their very different internal configurations. The average benchmark score for the Core i3-8300 is 1564, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 sits at 1537, a difference of roughly 1.8% in favor of the desktop part. In percentile terms, the Core i3-8300 ranks at the 39th percentile of all CPUs in the database, and the Xeon at the 38th, placing them almost side by side in the overall distribution.

The nearest rivals listed for each processor reinforce this picture. The Core i3-8300's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-6600T with an average score of 1563, a delta of 0%, followed by the AMD Ryzen 3 1300X at 1562 (0.1% behind) and the AMD Opteron 6276 at 1560 (0.3% behind). On the other side, the Xeon E5-1428L v2's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-4760HQ at 1549, which is 0.8% ahead, while the Intel Core i5-7440HQ trails by 0.7% with a score of 1527. These reference points show that both chips occupy the same performance tier, with the Core i3-8300 holding a slight edge over the Xeon but both staying within a few percentage points of their respective peer groups.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i3-8300 wins in every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is straightforward from the data: any workload captured by Cinebench, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, favors the desktop part. The single-core wins are particularly telling. With a base clock of 3.70 GHz and no boost clock listed, the Core i3-8300 relies on a high sustained frequency, and that shows in scores of 76, 320, and 763 across the three Cinebench versions. The Xeon E5-1428L v2, with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.70 GHz, cannot match those single-thread numbers, trailing by 1.3% to 1.7% in each case. For lightly threaded applications, such as everyday desktop use or older software that uses few cores, the Core i3-8300 is the stronger option.

The multi-core results are more nuanced. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 brings 6 cores and 12 threads to the table, while the Core i3-8300 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Yet the Xeon still loses every multi-core test, with deltas of 1.9%, 1.7%, and 1.7% in R15, R20, and R23 respectively. This indicates that the Core i3-8300's higher clock speed compensates for its fewer threads in these rendering workloads. The Xeon's larger 15 MB shared L3 cache versus the Core i3-8300's 8 MB does not close the gap. For server-oriented tasks that scale well beyond six cores and twelve threads, the Xeon might have an advantage in other contexts, but the recorded Cinebench data does not show it. The Xeon also supports triple-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, while the Core i3-8300 uses dual-channel DDR4 at 38.4 GB/s, yet this does not translate into a benchmark win anywhere.

In terms of architectural fit, the Core i3-8300 is a desktop part with integrated graphics (UHD Graphics 630), making it suitable for systems that do not require a discrete GPU. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 has no integrated graphics, so it demands a separate graphics solution, which aligns with its server or workstation segment. The PCIe lane count differs as well: the Core i3-8300 provides 16 lanes, while the Xeon offers 24 lanes, which could matter for expansion in a server chassis, but the benchmark data does not reflect any performance impact from this difference.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded measurements, the Intel Core i3-8300 is the faster processor in every category tested. It leads the Xeon E5-1428L v2 by 1.9% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1.3% in R15 single-core, 1.7% in R20 multi-core, 1.6% in R20 single-core, 1.7% in R23 multi-core, and 1.7% in R23 single-core. With six wins out of six head-to-head benchmarks, the verdict is unambiguous for Cinebench workloads. The average benchmark score of 1564 versus 1537, and the 39th versus 38th percentile ranking, confirm that the Core i3-8300 is the better performer in the database's overall distribution.

The Xeon E5-1428L v2 is not without merits, but they do not appear in the benchmark results. It offers 6 cores and 12 threads, a larger 15 MB L3 cache, triple-channel memory support, and 24 PCIe lanes, all of which are server-oriented features. However, none of these translate into a win in the recorded tests. For a buyer choosing between these two for rendering or single-threaded tasks, the Core i3-8300 is the clear choice. For a workload that relies on the Xeon's specific server features, such as high core counts in non-Cinebench applications, the data here does not support that decision. The Core i3-8300 also carries a launch MSRP of $138, while the Xeon launched at $494, but the performance gap is the opposite of the price gap, making the desktop part the more compelling option from a purely performance standpoint.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-8300 wins all three single-core tests: 76 versus 75 in Cinebench R15, 320 versus 315 in R20, and 763 versus 750 in R23, with deltas ranging from 1.3% to 1.6%.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1428L v2's extra cores help it in multi-core benchmarks?

A: No. Despite having 6 cores and 12 threads versus the Core i3-8300's 4 cores and 4 threads, the Xeon loses every multi-core test. It trails by 1.9% in R15 (535 versus 545), 1.7% in R20 (2232 versus 2271), and 1.7% in R23 (5316 versus 5408).

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

A: The Core i3-8300 has an average benchmark score of 1564, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 has 1537, a gap of 27 points in favor of the Core i3-8300.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i3-8300 and the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 have ECC memory support listed in the database.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Core i3-8300 runs at 3.70 GHz base, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 has a 2.20 GHz base clock and a 2.70 GHz boost clock. The Core i3-8300 does not list a boost clock.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core i3-8300's closest rival is the Intel Core i5-6600T with a delta of 0%, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-4760HQ, which is 0.8% ahead of the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and are built for different market segments. The Intel Core i3-8300 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process node, with a die size of 126 mm². The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, specifically Ivy Bridge-EN, on a 22 nm process node, with a larger die size of 257 mm² and 1,860 million transistors. The Core i3-8300 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon has 6 cores and 12 threads, meaning the Xeon supports simultaneous multithreading where the Core i3 does not.

Cache configurations diverge as well. Both share the same per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and per-core L2 cache of 256 KB, but the L3 cache differs significantly: the Core i3-8300 has 8 MB shared, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 has 15 MB shared. The memory architecture is another split. The Core i3-8300 supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, whereas the Xeon supports DDR3 on a triple-channel bus with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for a desktop part. The PCIe configurations also differ: the Core i3-8300 provides 16 lanes of PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon provides 24 lanes of PCIe Gen 3. The Core i3-8300 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

The sockets are incompatible: the Core i3-8300 uses Intel Socket 1151, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1356. The Core i3-8300 is designated for the desktop market segment, while the Xeon is for server and workstation use. Release dates place the Core i3-8300 in early 2018 and the Xeon in early 2014, a four-year gap that explains the architectural differences. Both are end-of-life in production status, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the recorded data.

| Field | Intel Core i3-8300 | Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Cores | 4 | 6 |

| Threads | 4 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 3.70 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | Not listed | 2.70 GHz |

| TDP | 62 W | 60 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 1356 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Ivy Bridge |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Ivy Bridge-EN |

| Generation | Core i3 (Coffee Lake) | Xeon E5 (Ivy Bridge-EN) |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 257 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 1,860 million |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 15 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 32.0 GB/s |

| PCIe Lanes | 16 | 24 |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2018-02-13 | 2014-01-08 |

| Launch MSRP | $138 | $494 |

| Part Number | SR3XY | SR1B9 |

| Avg Benchmark Score | 1564 | 1537 |

| Percentile vs All CPUs | 39 | 38 |