Intel Core i3-9300 vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though modest, advantage for the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 across every Cinebench test in the comparison. Out of six head-to-head benchmarks, the Xeon wins all six, while the Core i3-9300 does not register a single victory. The largest margin appears in the multi-core tests, where the Xeon leads by 3.4% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 560 against the i3-9300's 541. The same 3.4% gap repeats in R20 (2336 vs 2257) and R23 (5564 vs 5374). These are consistent, not isolated results, indicating a stable performance differential in threaded workloads.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margins are slightly narrower. The Xeon leads by 2.6% in Cinebench R15 single-core (78 vs 76), by 3.3% in R20 single-core (329 vs 318), and by 3.4% in R23 single-core (785 vs 758). The fact that the single-core gap is close to the multi-core gap suggests the Xeon's advantage is not simply a matter of having more threads; it also holds a per-core edge in these tests.

The average benchmark score confirms this overall picture. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 averages 1609 across its benchmark set, while the Core i3-9300 averages 1554. That is a 55-point gap, or roughly 3.5%, which aligns well with the head-to-head results. Both processors sit at the 39th percentile among all CPUs in the database, placing them in the same performance tier. For context, the i3-9300's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1268L v5 (average 1557, 0.2% ahead), the Core i5-4690S (1551, 0.2% behind), and the AMD FX-8350 (1557, 0.2% ahead). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i7-10610U (1611, 0.1% ahead), the Core i7-970 (1613, 0.2% ahead), and the Core i3-9100E (1605, 0.3% behind). So the Xeon sits in a slightly higher performance tier, albeit by a narrow margin.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural families. The Core i3-9300 uses Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, built on Intel's 14 nm process. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 uses Skylake, specifically Skylake-DT, also on a 14 nm node. Both are manufactured by Intel, and both have the same die size (122 mm² for the Xeon, 126 mm² for the i3). The Xeon is listed with 1,750 million transistors, while the i3 does not have a published transistor count in the database.

The most significant architectural difference is in threading. The i3-9300 has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning it does not support Hyper-Threading. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, effectively doubling the available threads per core. This explains the Xeon's multi-core lead even though its clock speeds are much lower. The Xeon's base clock is 2.10 GHz and its boost clock is 3.20 GHz, compared to the i3's 3.70 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. Despite the i3's much higher clock speeds, the Xeon still wins all multi-core tests, which points directly at the threading advantage.

Cache configurations are identical: both have 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's transistor count of 1,750 million versus the i3's unlisted count, combined with the slightly smaller die, suggests a different physical layout. The i3's die size is 126 mm², the Xeon's is 122 mm², a difference of 4 mm². This is minor and does not translate into a major performance gap.

The integrated graphics situation differs. The Core i3-9300 includes an Intel UHD 630 integrated GPU, while the Xeon E3-1240L v5 has no integrated graphics at all. This is a notable architectural feature for systems that rely on the CPU's IGP, but it does not affect the benchmark scores presented here. Both CPUs support ECC memory, which is unusual for a Core i3 and makes the i3 more server-friendly than typical desktop parts. The PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU only.

Where Each One Wins

The data points to a simple split: the Xeon wins everywhere in this benchmark set, but the margin is modest. For multi-threaded workloads such as video rendering, compile jobs, or any task that scales with thread count, the Xeon's 8 threads give it a 3.4% lead in every multi-core Cinebench version. That is a small but consistent advantage. In single-threaded workloads, the Xeon also wins, though by a slightly smaller margin (2.6% to 3.4% depending on the test). This means that even in lightly threaded applications, the Xeon holds a slight edge in the data.

The Core i3-9300's only theoretical advantage is its much higher clock speed (3.70/4.30 GHz vs 2.10/3.20 GHz). In the recorded benchmarks, that clock advantage does not translate into a win, because the Xeon's per-core performance appears higher despite lower clocks. The i3 also has integrated graphics, which makes it suitable for systems that need a video output without a discrete GPU. The Xeon has no iGPU, so it requires a separate graphics card.

For power-sensitive systems, the Xeon has a major advantage: its TDP is 25 watts, versus the i3's 62 watts. That is a 37-watt difference, which is substantial for a 4-core CPU. This makes the Xeon a strong candidate for always-on servers or compact builds where cooling and power budget are tight. The i3's higher TDP suggests it draws more power under load, but its higher clocks may help in short bursts.

In terms of memory, the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3 only supports DDR4. The i3 has a higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s), which is a spec advantage, but it does not show up in the Cinebench results. Both CPUs support ECC memory, so error-correcting memory is available for both, which is a plus for workstation use.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several key specification fields. The most striking difference is TDP: the Xeon is rated at 25 watts, the i3 at 62 watts. This is a large gap for the same core count, and it directly affects cooling and power requirements. Clock speeds differ significantly: the i3's base clock is 3.70 GHz, the Xeon's is 2.10 GHz; the i3's boost is 4.30 GHz, the Xeon's is 3.20 GHz. Thread count is 4 vs 8, with the Xeon having double the threads.

The process node is identical (14 nm), as are the cache sizes and PCIe configuration. The socket is the same: Intel Socket 1151, so both fit the same motherboard family. The i3's die is 126 mm², the Xeon's is 122 mm². The i3 has integrated graphics (UHD 630), the Xeon has none. Memory support differs: the i3 is DDR4 only, the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4. Memory bandwidth is higher on the i3 (38.4 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s). The i3 has a market segment of Desktop, the Xeon is Server/Workstation. Release dates differ: the i3 launched in April 2019, the Xeon in October 2015. The i3's launch MSRP is $143, the Xeon's is $278. Both are end-of-life, neither is multiplier-unlocked.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 scores 5564, while the Intel Core i3-9300 scores 5374. The Xeon leads by 3.4%.

Q: Does the Core i3-9300 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the database lists ECC memory support as true for the Core i3-9300.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i3-9300 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon's 3.20 GHz.

Q: How many threads does the Xeon E3-1240L v5 have?

A: The Xeon has 8 threads, while the Core i3-9300 has 4 threads.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1240L v5 have integrated graphics?

A: No, the integrated graphics field is null for the Xeon. The Core i3-9300 includes UHD 630.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each CPU?

A: The Xeon averages 1609, and the i3 averages 1554. The Xeon is about 3.5% higher.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the superior processor for computing performance. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 2.6% to 3.4%. Its average benchmark score is 1609, versus 1554 for the i3-9300, and it does so while consuming only 25 watts TDP compared to the i3's 62 watts. For any application that scores on threaded or single-threaded performance, the Xeon is the choice.

The Core i3-9300 does have a few fields where it leads: higher base and boost clocks, higher memory bandwidth, and an integrated GPU. It also has a much lower launch MSRP ($143 vs $278). However, the recorded benchmark data does not show that these advantages translate into any performance win. The i3's higher memory bandwidth (38.4 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s) might help in memory-intensive tasks, but that is not reflected in the Cinebench results.

The Xeon's 8 threads are the decisive factor. Despite a 1.6 GHz lower base clock and a 1.1 GHz lower boost clock, the Xeon still outperform the i3 in single-core tests. This means the Xeon's per-core efficiency is higher in these tests, which is unusual given the clock disadvantage. The 25-watt TDP makes it especially attractive for low-power servers or compact workstations. The i3's 62-watt TDP is typical for a desktop chip, but it pulls more power for worse results.

For a user who needs a no-frills CPU with integrated graphics and lower initial cost, the Core i3-9300 is the only one of the two that fits that description. For a user who cares about raw benchmark performance, power efficiency, and thread count, the Xeon is the clear pick. The database shows no scenario in the tested suite where the i3 wins. The verdict is straightforward: the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the faster processor, and it is also more efficient. The i3-9300's only remaining strengths are its iGPU and lower launch MSRP, but neither of those appears in benchmark scores.