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

The recorded data paints an unusually one-sided picture for a pairing this close on paper. The Intel Core i3-8300T and the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 sit within a single percentile point of each other across the full database, at percentile 39 and percentile 38 respectively, with average benchmark scores of 1586 versus 1537. Yet the head-to-head results show the Xeon winning all six recorded Cinebench contests by a strikingly consistent margin of roughly 12 percent. How can two chips that look like statistical neighbors in the database produce such a lopsided direct comparison? The answer lies in which tests each chip has recorded, and in a generational divide between Ivy Bridge and Coffee Lake that the numbers suggest is smaller than expected.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The Xeon E5-1428L v2 wins every head-to-head test in the database, all six of them, by margins between 12 and 12.7 percent. That includes single-core results, which is notable given the i3's newer Coffee Lake architecture.

Q: How close are these two CPUs overall?

A: Extremely close in database-wide terms. The i3-8300T sits at the 39th percentile of all CPUs with an average score of 1586, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 sits at the 38th percentile with an average of 1537.

Q: Do both chips support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both list ECC support in the database, which is common for Xeons but a distinguishing feature for a Core i3 desktop part.

Q: Which has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon, with 6 cores and 12 threads versus 4 cores and 4 threads on the i3-8300T. The i3 has no hyper-threading and no boost clock; the Xeon boosts from 2.20 to 2.70 GHz.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the i3-8300T, which carries Intel UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 lists none, meaning a discrete GPU would be required in a build around it.

Q: Which is more power efficient by rating?

A: The i3-8300T carries a 35 W TDP against the Xeon's 60 W, so the desktop part is rated for substantially lower thermal envelope despite the newer node.

Architecture Differences

These chips come from different eras and different market segments, and the spec sheet reflects that. The Core i3-8300T is a Coffee Lake desktop part built on Intel's 14 nm process, with a die size of 126 mm². The Xeon E5-1428L v2 is an Ivy Bridge-EN server processor on the older 22 nm node, with a much larger 257 mm² die packing 1,860 million transistors. The Xeon's transistor count dwarfs what the i3's record shows, and most of that silicon budget went into cores and cache rather than per-clock efficiency.

The cache story favors the Xeon heavily at the last level: 15 MB of shared L3 versus 8 MB on the i3. At L1 and L2 the two are identical on paper, 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively, an interesting continuity across the two architectures.

Memory support diverges completely. The i3 uses dual-channel DDR4 with a recorded bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3 with 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth. Despite having an extra memory channel, the older DDR3 platform delivers less total bandwidth, which raises a question the data cannot fully answer: how much the Xeon's extra cache compensates in real workloads. The platform split extends to sockets, Intel Socket 1151 for the i3 versus Intel Socket 1356 for the Xeon, meaning these two parts could never share a motherboard.

PCIe also differs. The Xeon offers 24 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU against 16 on the i3, consistent with its server pedigree where add-in controllers and accelerators are more common. Both parts are multiplier-locked, and both are end-of-life products at the time of this writing.

Where Each One Wins

Strictly on recorded benchmark results, the Xeon wins everywhere. It sweeps the multicore tests, which is expected given 6 cores and 12 threads against 4 and 4, but it also sweeps single-core, which is less expected given the i3's newer architecture. The i3's 3.20 GHz base clock versus the Xeon's 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost does not translate into a single-core win in any recorded Cinebench run.

Where the i3 does hold advantages is in the specification sheet rather than the score columns: integrated UHD Graphics 630, a lower 35 W TDP, higher recorded memory bandwidth on its DDR4 platform, and a newer process node. The Xeon holds spec advantages in core count, thread count, cache size, and PCIe lanes. Neither part wins a single head-to-head benchmark in the i3's favor, so the use-case split here is less about performance crossover and more about platform fit: the i3 suits a compact desktop with integrated display output, while the Xeon suits a server or workstation chassis with discrete graphics and heavier multi-threaded workloads.

There is a caveat worth flagging. The i3 has Geekbench results recorded (3436 multicore, 1171 single-core) while the Xeon has none in the pack, and the two chips' average scores come from different test mixes. The database-wide averages nearly tie, which hints that the Xeon's 12 percent Cinebench edge may not generalize to every workload family. The recorded data simply does not include overlapping Geekbench runs to confirm or deny that.

Specification Differences

• Cores/threads: 4/4 (i3-8300T) vs 6/12 (Xeon E5-1428L v2)
• Clocks: 3.20 GHz base, no boost (i3) vs 2.20 GHz base, 2.70 GHz boost (Xeon)
• TDP: 35 W vs 60 W
• Architecture/codename: Coffee Lake vs Ivy Bridge-EN
• Process node: 14 nm vs 22 nm
• Die size: 126 mm² vs 257 mm²; the Xeon records 1,860 million transistors, the i3 records none
• L3 cache: 8 MB shared vs 15 MB shared
• Memory: DDR4 dual-channel at 38.4 GB/s vs DDR3 triple-channel at 32.0 GB/s
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 CPU lanes vs Gen 3, 24 CPU lanes
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 630 vs none
• Socket: 1151 vs 1356
• Market segment: Desktop vs Server/Workstation
• Release dates: April 2018 for the i3 versus January 2014 for the Xeon
• Launch MSRP: $138 for the i3-8300T, $494 for the Xeon E5-1428L v2

Both support ECC memory, both are locked, and both are end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon's sweep is remarkable for its consistency. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 535 against the i3's 469, a 12.3 percent gap. In R15 single-core it is 75 versus 66, 12 percent. Move to R20 and the pattern repeats: 2232 versus 1955 in multicore (12.4 percent) and 315 versus 275 in single-core (12.7 percent). R23 continues it with 5316 versus 4656 multicore (12.4 percent) and 750 versus 657 single-core (12.4 percent).

Six tests, six Xeon wins, and every delta clustered between 12 and 12.7 percent. That uniformity is the most interesting finding here. Normally a 6-core/12-thread chip beating a 4-core/4-thread chip by only 12 percent in multicore would suggest severe scaling limits, and indeed the Xeon's advantage is no larger in multicore than in single-core. In fact its single-core margin is sometimes the bigger one, at 12.7 percent in R20.

The single-core losses are the genuinely surprising data points. The i3-8300T runs a 3.20 GHz base clock on a 14 nm Coffee Lake design, yet trails the 22 nm Ivy Bridge Xeon even when the Xeon is boosted to 2.70 GHz. The recorded data does not include per-core boost behavior, sustained clocks, or thermal effects under the i3's 35 W envelope, so the explanation remains speculative. What the data does show is that two IPC and clock advantages that look favorable on the spec sheet did not materialize in any recorded Cinebench result.

For context against the wider database, the i3's average score of 1586 lands it within rounding distance of rivals like the Core i3-9100E (1605, a 1.2 percent gap), the Core i7-1060G7 (1591, 0.3 percent), the AMD Opteron 6282 SE (1569), and its own sibling Core i3-8300 (1564). The Xeon's 1537 average sits among the Core i5-7440HQ (1527), Core i5-4670S (1526), Core i7-4760HQ (1549), and Pentium Gold G7400E (1524). Both chips are firmly mid-pack parts by database standards.

The Verdict

If the decision rests purely on recorded benchmark performance, the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is the pick: it wins every head-to-head test by about 12 percent, single-core and multicore alike, backed by more cores, more threads, and nearly double the L3 cache. Workloads that scale with threads and benefit from the larger cache and 24 PCIe lanes favor it clearly.

The i3-8300T argues for itself on platform grounds rather than performance grounds. It draws a rated 35 W versus 60 W, includes UHD Graphics 630 so no discrete GPU is needed, delivers more recorded memory bandwidth on DDR4, and targets a standard desktop socket. For a compact, low-power desktop build where Cinebench-class throughput is not the priority, its spec profile is the more practical fit despite losing every recorded test.

The database framing tempers the Xeon's sweep: the two chips are separated by just one percentile point overall, 39 versus 38, and one average-score point gap of 49 points. The Xeon wins every recorded race between them, but across the whole field they finish side by side. Choose the Xeon for the measured performance edge, choose the i3 for the leaner, self-contained desktop platform.