CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i3-9100HL and Intel Xeon W3580 are a study in architectural contrast separated by a decade of process technology, yet they land at nearly identical performance points. The data shows a dead heat: the i3-9100HL holds a 0.1% average benchmark advantage over the Xeon W3580, with both CPUs sitting at the 29th percentile of all processors. The i3-9100HL wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but four of those wins are ties, and the two decisive wins are by a single point. This is not a contest of speed but of platform philosophy.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that the Core i3-9100HL and Xeon W3580 are performance equivalents for multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads. The i3-9100HL edges ahead in Cinebench R20 multi-core with a score of 1299 versus 1298, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core with 3094 versus 3092. In every other test, Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 single-core, the scores are identical at 311, 183, and 436 respectively. The average benchmark score difference is one point: 1065 for the i3-9100HL versus 1064 for the Xeon W3580.

Given this parity, the choice hinges entirely on platform and feature differences. The i3-9100HL is a 25W part on Intel BGA 1440 with UHD Graphics 630 integrated, making it suited for compact, low-power desktop systems where an add-in GPU is unnecessary. The Xeon W3580 is a 130W server/workstation processor on Intel Socket 1366 with no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU and a robust cooling solution. The i3-9100HL also supports DDR4 memory and PCIe Gen 3, while the Xeon W3580 uses DDR3 and PCIe Gen 2. For a modern, efficient build with ECC memory support and integrated graphics, the i3-9100HL is the rational pick. For legacy workstation platforms with triple-channel DDR3, the Xeon W3580 remains a viable, if power-hungry, option. The i3-9100HL’s launch MSRP is $225; the Xeon W3580 has no listing.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different eras of Intel design. The Core i3-9100HL is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, using a 14 nm process node from Intel’s own foundry. Its die size is 126 mm². The Xeon W3580, codenamed Bloomfield, is a Nehalem architecture part fabricated on a 45 nm process, also at Intel’s foundry. Its die is substantially larger at 263 mm² and contains 731 million transistors.

Core and thread configurations differ despite equal core counts. Both have 4 physical cores, but the i3-9100HL supports 4 threads total, while the Xeon W3580 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading. This disparity is offset by clock speeds: the i3-9100HL runs at a 1.60 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost, whereas the Xeon W3580 runs at a much higher 3.33 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. Cache hierarchies are similar per-core, with both featuring 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs: the i3-9100HL has 6 MB shared, while the Xeon W3580 has 8 MB shared.

The platform features diverge sharply. The i3-9100HL supports DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, and includes integrated UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon W3580 supports DDR3 on a triple-channel bus with no listed bandwidth figure and no integrated graphics. Both support ECC memory. The i3-9100HL provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU; the Xeon W3580 provides PCIe Gen 2. The i3-9100HL is marked as a Desktop segment part, while the Xeon W3580 is categorized as Server/Workstation. Both are end-of-life products.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show an extraordinarily tight race. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 311, a perfect tie. The i3-9100HL is listed as the winner with a deltaPct of 0, which reflects a nominal edge in the data but no measurable performance difference.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the i3-9100HL scores 1299 multi-core and the Xeon W3580 scores 1298, giving the i3-9100HL a 0.1% advantage. In the single-core R20 test, both score 183, another tie. The R23 multi-core test shows the i3-9100HL at 3094 versus 3092 for the Xeon W3580, again a 0.1% margin. R23 single-core results are identical at 436 for both.

The pattern is clear: the Xeon W3580’s higher clocks (3.33 GHz base, 3.60 GHz boost) and 8 threads do not overcome the i3-9100HL’s architectural efficiency and 14 nm process advantage. The i3-9100HL’s lower clocks (1.60 GHz base, 2.90 GHz boost) are compensated by the newer architecture, leading to scores within 0.1% across the board. The Xeon W3580’s 8 threads should provide a multi-core advantage, yet the i3-9100HL’s per-core performance and cache efficiency close the gap entirely. The largest delta in any benchmark is 0.1%, which is within run-to-run variance. The i3-9100HL wins all five head-to-head listings, but four of those wins are statistical ties.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors, based solely on the data:

• Threads: 4 (i3-9100HL) vs 8 (Xeon W3580)
• Base clock: 1.60 GHz vs 3.33 GHz
• Boost clock: 2.90 GHz vs 3.60 GHz
• TDP: 25W vs 130W
• Socket: Intel BGA 1440 vs Intel Socket 1366
• Architecture: Coffee Lake vs Nehalem
• Codename: Coffee Lake vs Bloomfield
• Generation: Core i3 (Coffee Lake Refresh) vs Xeon (Bloomfield)
• Process node: 14 nm vs 45 nm
• Die size: 126 mm² vs 263 mm²
• Transistors: not listed vs 731 million
• L3 cache: 6 MB shared vs 8 MB shared
• Memory support: DDR4 vs DDR3
• Memory bus: Dual-channel vs Triple-channel
• Memory bandwidth: 42.7 GB/s vs not listed
• PCIe: Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) vs Gen 2
• Integrated graphics: UHD Graphics 630 vs none
• Market segment: Desktop vs Server/Workstation
• Release date: 2019-03-31 vs 2009-08-08
• Launch MSRP: $225 vs not listed
• Part number: SRFEK vs SLBET

Identical specifications include 4 cores, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, ECC memory support, and a locked multiplier on both parts.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core i3-9100HL is nominally faster, scoring 1299 in Cinebench R20 multi-core versus 1298 for the Xeon W3580, and 3094 versus 3092 in Cinebench R23 multi-core. The deltas are 0.1% in both cases, which is effectively a tie.

Q: How do single-core scores compare?

A: They are identical. Both processors score 183 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 436 in Cinebench R23 single-core. The Xeon W3580’s higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz does not produce an advantage over the i3-9100HL’s 2.90 GHz boost.

Q: Does the Xeon W3580’s 8-thread count give it an edge?

A: No. Despite having 8 threads versus the i3-9100HL’s 4 threads, the Xeon W3580 does not win any benchmark. Its scores are either tied or slightly lower, suggesting the i3-9100HL’s architectural efficiency offsets the thread deficit.

Q: What are the major platform differences?

A: The i3-9100HL uses DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, PCIe Gen 3, and includes integrated UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon W3580 uses DDR3 on a triple-channel bus, PCIe Gen 2, and has no integrated graphics. The i3-9100HL also has a significantly lower TDP of 25W versus 130W.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Both support ECC memory. The i3-9100HL and Xeon W3580 each list ECC memory support as a feature, despite their different memory types (DDR4 vs DDR3).

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare?

A: The i3-9100HL has an average benchmark score of 1065, and the Xeon W3580 has an average score of 1064. The i3-9100HL is 0.1% ahead, and both sit at the 29th percentile of all CPUs.