Intel Core i3-9100 vs Intel Xeon E-2224 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock, and does that translate into benchmark wins?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2224 boosts to 4.60 GHz, while the Intel Core i3-9100 boosts to 4.20 GHz. The Xeon wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, including every single-core test, which aligns with its higher maximum frequency.

Q: Both CPUs have four cores and four threads. How do their cache configurations differ?

A: The Core i3-9100 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E-2224 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, so the difference is entirely in the larger L3 pool on the Xeon.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth figures for each processor?

A: The Core i3-9100 supports dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. The Xeon E-2224 also supports dual-channel DDR4 but offers a higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. Both support ECC memory.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics, and how do they differ?

A: Both processors include integrated graphics. The Core i3-9100 has UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon E-2224 has UHD Graphics P630. The database records no benchmark results for the graphics units, so their comparative performance is not measured here.

Q: How do the two CPUs rank against all processors in the database?

A: The Core i3-9100 sits at the 42nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon E-2224 sits at the 41st percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 1806 for the i3-9100 and 1762 for the Xeon, meaning the i3-9100 has a slightly higher overall average despite losing every direct head-to-head test.

Q: What are the launch MSRP values for these two chips?

A: The Intel Core i3-9100 had a launch MSRP of $122, and the Intel Xeon E-2224 had a launch MSRP of $193. Both processors are now end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The data tells a clear story: the Intel Xeon E-2224 wins every single benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. Across six Cinebench tests, spanning R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core workloads, the Xeon leads by a consistent margin of 7.7% to 8.1%. If the primary criterion is raw benchmark performance, the Xeon E-2224 is the pick without qualification.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Core i3-9100 has an average score of 1806, which is 2.5% higher than the Xeon's 1762. The i3-9100 also ranks at the 42nd percentile versus the Xeon's 41st. This discrepancy suggests that the i3-9100 may hold up better in other workloads not captured in the direct comparison, or that its nearest rivals cluster differently. The i3-9100's nearest rivals include the Core i3-9320 (delta -0.1%), Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (delta -0.2%), and Core i5-6600K (delta -0.5%), while the Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i5-5675C (delta 0.2%) and Ryzen 5 2400GE (delta -0.2%).

For users who prioritize the measured Cinebench results specifically, the Xeon E-2224 is the correct choice. Its higher boost clock and larger L3 cache appear to deliver consistent advantages in both single-threaded and multi-threaded rendering tasks. For users who want the higher average score across all database benchmarks, the Core i3-9100 is arguably the better all-rounder, especially given its lower launch MSRP of $122 versus $193.

The Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the i3-9100 targets Desktop. This distinction matters for platform expectations, even though both use the same socket and architecture. The Xeon's higher TDP of 71 watts versus 65 watts reflects a slightly more power-hungry design, but both remain within typical air-cooled territory.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent. The Xeon E-2224 wins all six tests, with the smallest margin in Cinebench R20 multi-core at 7.7% and the largest in Cinebench R15 single-core at 8.1%. Here is the full breakdown:

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 614 against the i3-9100's 566, a delta of -7.8% from the i3's perspective. In R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 86 against 79, a delta of -8.1%. These are the two oldest tests in the comparison, and the Xeon's advantage is already established.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core test shows the Xeon at 2559 versus 2361, a 7.7% delta. The single-core test shows 361 versus 333, a 7.8% delta. The margins are nearly identical to R15, indicating that the performance gap is consistent across workload generations.

In the newest tests, Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 6093 against 5622, a 7.7% delta. The single-core test shows 860 versus 793, a 7.8% delta. The pattern holds: the Xeon leads by roughly 8% in every single-core test and by slightly less in multi-core tests.

The interpretation is straightforward. The Xeon's 4.60 GHz boost clock versus the i3's 4.20 GHz gives it a 9.5% theoretical frequency advantage, and the observed single-core deltas of 7.8% to 8.1% track that closely. The multi-core deltas of 7.7% to 7.8% are slightly smaller, likely because both CPUs have identical core and thread counts, so the advantage stems primarily from clock speed rather than additional parallel resources.

The i3-9100 does have its own benchmark data outside the head-to-head comparison. Its Geekbench scores are 3403 multi-core and 1290 single-core, and its Cinebench R23 scores are 5622 multi-core and 793 single-core. The Xeon has no Geekbench results in the database, so a direct Geekbench comparison is not possible. This is a gap in the data that limits the overall verdict to Cinebench results.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs share many core specifications, but several fields differ. The base clocks are distinct: the i3-9100 runs at 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon E-2224 runs at 3.40 GHz. The boost clocks are also different, with the i3 at 4.20 GHz and the Xeon at 4.60 GHz. The Xeon has the higher maximum frequency by 0.40 GHz, while the i3 has the higher base frequency by 0.20 GHz.

The TDP differs by 6 watts: the i3-9100 is rated at 65 watts, and the Xeon E-2224 at 71 watts. The L3 cache differs by 2 MB: the i3 has 6 MB shared, and the Xeon has 8 MB shared. Memory bandwidth differs by 4.3 GB/s: the i3 supports 38.4 GB/s, and the Xeon supports 42.7 GB/s.

The integrated graphics differ: the i3-9100 has UHD Graphics 630, and the Xeon E-2224 has UHD Graphics P630. The market segments differ: the i3 is Desktop, and the Xeon is Server/Workstation. The release dates differ: the i3 launched on August 31, 2018, and the Xeon launched on May 28, 2019. The launch MSRP values are $122 for the i3 and $193 for the Xeon.

The part numbers differ (SRCZV for the i3, SRFAV for the Xeon), and the generation labels differ: the i3 is listed as "Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh)," and the Xeon is listed as "Xeon E (Coffee Lake)." The Xeon has a series designation of "Xeon E-2200 series," while the i3 has no series field.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's Coffee Lake architecture and use the same 14 nm process node from Intel's foundry. Both have the same die size of 126 mm², and both use the Intel Socket 1151. The codenames differ slightly: the i3-9100 is listed simply as "Coffee Lake," while the Xeon E-2224 is listed as "Coffee Lake-S WS."

The core and thread counts are identical at 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. Both support DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration, and both support ECC memory. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The key architectural differences are the L3 cache size (6 MB versus 8 MB), the memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s), and the integrated graphics variant (UHD Graphics 630 versus UHD Graphics P630). The Xeon's larger L3 cache is likely a contributor to its benchmark advantage, as more shared cache can improve hit rates for frequently accessed data.

The Xeon's "WS" designation in its codename suggests a workstation-oriented variant, which aligns with its Server/Workstation market segment. The i3-9100 has no such suffix, consistent with its desktop positioning. Despite these differences, both are end-of-life products, and both use the same fundamental Coffee Lake core design.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E-2224 wins in every measured benchmark category. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it leads in both single-core and multi-core tests. The margins are consistent, ranging from 7.7% to 8.1%. The Xeon's advantages are tied to its higher boost clock (4.60 GHz versus 4.20 GHz) and its larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB). For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the Xeon is unambiguously superior.

The Xeon also wins on memory bandwidth, offering 42.7 GB/s versus the i3's 38.4 GB/s. This could benefit memory-intensive applications beyond the Cinebench tests, though the database does not include direct benchmarks for such workloads. The Xeon's UHD Graphics P630 is a distinct variant from the i3's UHD Graphics 630, though no benchmark data exists to quantify any difference.

The Core i3-9100 wins on the average benchmark score across all recorded tests: 1806 versus 1762, a 2.5% advantage. It also holds a higher percentile rank at 42 versus 41. The i3-9100 wins on base clock speed (3.60 GHz versus 3.40 GHz), which means it starts at a higher frequency before boosting. It also has a lower TDP at 65 watts versus 71 watts, which may be preferable for power-constrained builds.

The i3-9100's nearest rivals include the Core i3-9320, which scores nearly identically (1808 versus 1806, delta -0.1%), and the Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810 (delta -0.2%). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i5-5675C at 1759 (delta 0.2%) and the Ryzen 5 2400GE at 1766 (delta -0.2%). This suggests the i3-9100 sits in a slightly more competitive performance tier than the Xeon.

For users who prioritize the specific Cinebench workloads in the head-to-head data, the Xeon E-2224 is the clear winner. For users who value the broader average benchmark score, the Core i3-9100 is the better choice. The i3-9100 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $122, though pricing considerations are secondary to the performance data. The Xeon's higher launch MSRP of $193 reflects its workstation positioning, but the benchmark data does not show a proportional performance advantage, only a consistent 8% lead.