Intel Core i3-9350K vs Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 and the Intel Core i3-9350K are both 4-core Intel processors from the 14 nm era, but they target entirely different platforms and use cases. The Xeon is a mobile workstation part with 8 threads and ECC memory support, while the Core i3 is a desktop chip with a higher clock speed and an unlocked multiplier. Benchmark results from the database show a consistent but narrow edge for the Core i3 across every Cinebench test, with the Xeon trailing by roughly 2.2% to 2.7% in each discipline. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the Core i3-9350K sits at 1867, while the Xeon E3-1505M v5 lands at 1817, a gap of about 2.7%. Both processors occupy the same 42nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they deliver comparable overall performance despite their different designs.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i3-9350K wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, so the use-case split is defined by the margins and the platform features rather than by outright performance victories. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core i3 scores 650 against the Xeon's 633, a 2.6% advantage. In single-core R15, it wins 91 to 89, a 2.2% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Core i3 posts 2711 multicore and 382 single-core, while the Xeon manages 2639 and 372, translating to 2.7% and 2.6% leads respectively. Cinebench R23 shows the same pattern: 6456 versus 6284 in multicore (2.7% ahead) and 911 versus 887 in single-core (2.6% ahead). The Core i3's advantage is therefore uniform across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, but it is small enough that the Xeon remains competitive in absolute terms.

The Xeon's wins are not in raw benchmark scores but in platform characteristics. It supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the Core i3 is limited to DDR4. The Xeon also carries ECC memory support, a feature shared by the Core i3 in this case, but the Xeon's mobile BGA 1440 socket means it is designed for workstation laptops rather than desktop builds. The Xeon's 45 W TDP is far lower than the Core i3's 91 W TDP, making it the better fit for power-constrained, portable workstation environments. The Core i3, by contrast, is a desktop part with a 4.00 GHz base clock and 4.60 GHz boost clock, substantially higher than the Xeon's 2.80 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost, which explains its consistent benchmark lead. The Core i3 also has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, whereas the Xeon is locked.

The Verdict

For users prioritizing raw Cinebench performance, the Intel Core i3-9350K is the clear choice. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with margins ranging from 2.2% to 2.7%. Its higher clock speeds, 4.00 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost, deliver a measurable edge in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The unlocked multiplier is an additional advantage for enthusiasts who want to push beyond stock performance. The Core i3 also offers a higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s compared to the Xeon's 34.1 GB/s, and its UHD 630 integrated graphics is a newer generation than the Xeon's HD Graphics P530.

For users who need a mobile workstation processor, the Intel Xeon E3-1505M v5 is the only viable option between these two, as the Core i3 is a desktop Socket 1151 part. The Xeon's 45 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops, and its support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory adds flexibility. ECC memory support is present on both processors, which is notable for a Core i3 part, but the Xeon's server/workstation market segment suggests it is intended for reliability-focused environments. The Xeon's performance deficit is small, roughly 2.6% to 2.7% behind the Core i3 in all tests, so users who need the Xeon's form factor or power profile lose little in benchmark performance.

The database places both CPUs at the 42nd percentile, meaning they perform similarly relative to the broader CPU landscape. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-6600K with an average score of 1816, just 0.1% behind, and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810, 0.4% behind. The Core i3's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5-1630 v4 at 1869, 0.1% ahead, and the Intel Core i5-1035G4 at 1861, 0.3% behind. These comparisons confirm that both chips sit in a crowded performance band where small margins separate many models. The verdict depends entirely on platform requirements: desktop overclocking favors the Core i3, while mobile workstation duty favors the Xeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest performance gap in the head-to-head results is a tie across several tests at 2.7%. Cinebench R20 multicore shows the Core i3-9350K at 2711 against the Xeon E3-1505M v5 at 2639, a 2.7% delta. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 6456 versus 6284, also a 2.7% delta. These multi-core tests are where the Core i3's higher clock speed matters most, despite the Xeon having twice the threads. The Xeon's 8 threads cannot overcome the Core i3's 4.60 GHz boost clock versus its own 3.70 GHz boost.

The single-core tests show slightly smaller gaps. Cinebench R15 single-core has the Core i3 at 91 and the Xeon at 89, a 2.2% difference. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 382 versus 372, a 2.6% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 911 versus 887, again a 2.6% difference. The smallest margin is in R15 single-core, where a single point separates the two in raw score terms. These results indicate that the Core i3's advantage is consistent but modest, never exceeding 2.7% in any test.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Core i3-9350K has an average score of 1867, while the Xeon E3-1505M v5 has an average of 1817. That 50-point difference aligns with the head-to-head deltas. In the context of nearest rivals, the Xeon's average of 1817 is nearly identical to the Core i5-6600K at 1816, and the Core i3's 1867 is nearly identical to the Xeon E5-1630 v4 at 1869. Both processors are effectively tied with their closest competitors, reinforcing that the performance gap between them is real but not transformative.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i3-9350K is faster in every multi-core test. It scores 650 in Cinebench R15, 2711 in R20, and 6456 in R23, while the Xeon E3-1505M v5 scores 633, 2639, and 6284 respectively. The Core i3 leads by 2.6% to 2.7% in these tests.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1505M v5 have more threads than the Core i3-9350K?

A: Yes, the Xeon has 8 threads compared to the Core i3's 4 threads. Despite this advantage, the Core i3 still wins all multi-core benchmarks due to its significantly higher clock speeds.

Q: Can either processor support ECC memory?

A: Both processors support ECC memory. The Xeon E3-1505M v5 is a server/workstation part and naturally includes ECC support, while the Core i3-9350K also lists ECC memory as a supported feature.

Q: What are the clock speed differences between the two?

A: The Core i3-9350K has a 4.00 GHz base clock and a 4.60 GHz boost clock. The Xeon E3-1505M v5 has a 2.80 GHz base clock and a 3.70 GHz boost clock. The Core i3 is substantially faster in both metrics.

Q: Which processor has a lower power draw?

A: The Xeon E3-1505M v5 has a 45 W TDP, while the Core i3-9350K has a 91 W TDP. The Xeon is designed for mobile workstations and draws less power, while the Core i3 is a desktop part with higher power consumption.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon's average score of 1817 is 0.1% ahead of the Core i5-6600K at 1816 and 0.4% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U at 1810. The Core i3's average of 1867 is 0.1% behind the Xeon E5-1630 v4 at 1869 and 0.3% ahead of the Core i5-1035G4 at 1861.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and generations. The Xeon E3-1505M v5 is built on the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-H codename, and belongs to the Xeon E3 generation. The Core i3-9350K is built on the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation. Both use a 14 nm process node from Intel, but the die sizes differ slightly: the Xeon measures 122 mm² with 2,300 million transistors, while the Core i3 measures 126 mm² with no transistor count listed in the database.

Cache configurations are identical in structure. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The core counts are the same at 4, but the thread counts differ: the Xeon supports 8 threads while the Core i3 supports 4. This means the Xeon relies on hyper-threading to match the Core i3's multi-core performance, while the Core i3 uses higher clocks to compensate for its lack of hyper-threading.

Memory support differs in scope. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The Core i3 supports only DDR4, also dual-channel, but with a higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s. Both processors support ECC memory, a rare feature for a Core i3 part. PCIe support is the same for both: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Xeon uses HD Graphics P530, while the Core i3 uses UHD 630. The Core i3's graphics are from a newer generation, though no benchmark data is provided for iGPU performance. The sockets are completely different: the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1440, a soldered mobile socket, while the Core i3 uses Intel Socket 1151, a desktop socket. This makes the Xeon unsuitable for desktop upgrades and the Core i3 unsuitable for mobile workstation builds.

The Core i3 has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the Xeon's multiplier is locked. The TDP difference is substantial: the Xeon is rated at 45 W, while the Core i3 is rated at 91 W. The Xeon's release date is October 2015, while the Core i3's release date is April 2019. The Core i3's launch MSRP is $184, while the Xeon's launch MSRP is $434. Both processors are end-of-life in terms of production status, so neither is a current-generation purchase.