Intel Core i3-8350K vs Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data in the head-to-head comparison is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins every single benchmark listed, across all Cinebench versions and both multi-core and single-core tests. The Core i3-8350K does not register a single win in the six direct comparisons, a clean sweep that is rare in processor matchups.

In multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon’s advantage is consistent and substantial. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 723 against the i3’s 593, a delta of -18% from the i3’s perspective. That pattern repeats almost exactly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 3015 versus 2471 (again -18%), and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon reaches 7179 against the i3’s 5884 (-18%). The consistency of this ~18% margin across three different Cinebench generations suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

The single-core results tell a similar story, though with slightly larger deltas. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 102 versus the i3’s 83 (-18.6%). In R20 single-core, it is 425 against 348 (-18.1%), and in R23 single-core, 1013 versus 830 (-18.1%). It is noteworthy that a 2014 server processor with a 2.50 GHz base clock beats a 2017 desktop chip with a 4.00 GHz base clock in single-threaded performance — the Xeon’s boost clock of 3.00 GHz and its architectural efficiency in these tests clearly overcome the raw clock-speed deficit.

Looking at the aggregate picture, the Xeon’s average benchmark score is 2076, while the i3’s is 2096. That puts the two processors almost exactly at parity in the overall average — a 0.1% difference favoring the i3 — despite the Xeon winning every head-to-head test. The explanation lies in the benchmark sets: the i3 has Geekbench scores in its list (4992 multi-core, 1564 single-core) that the Xeon lacks, and those scores pull the i3’s average up. Both processors share the same 46th percentile ranking among all CPUs, underscoring how close their overall standing is despite their very different profiles.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2628 v3 is the clear winner in every Cinebench test, which covers both multi-threaded rendering and single-threaded workloads. If the task is Cinebench R15, R20, or R23 — regardless of thread count — the Xeon delivers higher scores by a margin of roughly 18%. This makes it the stronger choice for any application that resembles Cinebench’s rendering and ray-tracing workloads, where both multi-core scaling and per-core efficiency matter.

The Core i3-8350K does not win any of the six direct head-to-head benchmarks. However, its inclusion of Geekbench scores in its benchmark list — where it posts 4992 multi-core and 1564 single-core — suggests it has competitive performance in that specific test suite, even though no direct Geekbench comparison exists in the data. The i3’s average benchmark score of 2096 is slightly higher than the Xeon’s 2076, and its nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 1700X at a 0.1% delta, indicating that the i3 sits in a tightly contested performance band.

For use-case planning, the Xeon’s 8 cores and 16 threads give it a structural advantage in parallel workloads, and its 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth (quad-channel DDR4) versus the i3’s 38.4 GB/s (dual-channel) further supports memory-intensive server or workstation tasks. The i3, with 4 cores and 4 threads, is a desktop part with integrated UHD Graphics 630, which the Xeon completely lacks. The i3 also has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking, whereas the Xeon is locked.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built on different process nodes. The Core i3-8350K uses Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process with a die size of 126 mm². The Xeon E5-2628 v3 uses Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm process with a much larger die of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. The larger, older-node die gives the Xeon more physical resources to work with, explaining its higher core count.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply: the i3 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads. The i3 compensates with a base clock of 4.00 GHz and no boost clock listed (it runs at a fixed high frequency), whereas the Xeon has a 2.50 GHz base and a 3.00 GHz boost. The i3’s TDP is 91 watts, slightly higher than the Xeon’s 85 watts, even though the Xeon has twice the cores and four times the threads — a reflection of the i3’s much higher clock speed on a smaller die.

Cache hierarchies differ in size but not in per-core organization. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache is where the Xeon pulls ahead: 20 MB shared versus the i3’s 8 MB shared. That 2.5x L3 advantage, combined with more cores, helps the Xeon in data-heavy workloads.

Memory support shows another major split. The i3 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth; the Xeon uses quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth — nearly double the throughput. Both support ECC memory, which is notable for a desktop i3 part. PCIe connectivity also favors the Xeon: 40 lanes (Gen 3) versus the i3’s 16 lanes (Gen 3), making the Xeon far more suitable for multi-GPU or high-I/O server configurations.

The i3 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The i3 is socketed for Intel Socket 1151, the Xeon for Intel Socket 2011-3. The i3’s multiplier is unlocked, the Xeon’s is not. Release dates are three years apart: the i3 launched in October 2017, the Xeon in September 2014. Both are end-of-life products.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins with a score of 7179, beating the Core i3-8350K’s 5884 by 18%.

Q: Does the Core i3-8350K have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests: 102 vs 83 in R15 (-18.6%), 425 vs 348 in R20 (-18.1%), and 1013 vs 830 in R23 (-18.1%).

Q: How do the two processors compare in average benchmark score?

A: The Core i3-8350K has an average score of 2096, slightly higher than the Xeon’s 2076, a 0.1% difference. Both rank at the 46th percentile among all CPUs.

Q: What memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i3-8350K supports dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core i3-8350K and the Xeon E5-2628 v3 support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i3-8350K has integrated graphics, in the form of UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-2628 v3 has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive: the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 outperforms the Intel Core i3-8350K in every direct comparison available. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Xeon leads by a consistent 18% to 18.6% margin. This is not a narrow victory or a workload-specific win — it is a uniform sweep across both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering workloads.

The Xeon’s strengths are structural. Its 8 cores and 16 threads, 20 MB of L3 cache, quad-channel memory with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 40 PCIe lanes make it the superior choice for server, workstation, and heavily parallel compute tasks. Its 85 watt TDP is lower than the i3’s 91 watts, which is remarkable given the Xeon’s larger core count and die size. For anyone running Cinebench-class workloads or memory-bandwidth-intensive applications, the Xeon is the clear pick.

The Core i3-8350K, despite losing every head-to-head test, has its own profile. Its average benchmark score of 2096 is marginally higher than the Xeon’s 2076, driven by strong Geekbench results (4992 multi-core, 1564 single-core). Its 4.00 GHz base clock, unlocked multiplier, and integrated UHD Graphics 630 make it a flexible desktop part for users who overclock, need a fallback GPU, or run a mix of workloads that include Geekbench-style tests. The i3 also supports ECC memory, an unusual feature for a consumer desktop chip.

The verdict from the data is straightforward. If the workload is dominated by Cinebench-style rendering, multi-threaded compilation, or server tasks requiring high memory bandwidth and PCIe lane count, the Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins outright. If the workload leans toward Geekbench-style tests, benefits from overclocking, or requires integrated graphics, the Core i3-8350K is the better fit despite losing the Cinebench sweep. Both processors sit at the 46th percentile among all CPUs, and their average scores differ by only 0.1% — but the distribution of those scores could not be more different. Choose the Xeon for raw throughput and parallel scaling; choose the i3 for desktop flexibility and clock-speed-driven single-thread tasks.