Intel Core i3-9350KF vs Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably one-sided picture. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins decisively, with a consistent deltaPct of -11.1% against the Core i3-9350KF in every single comparison. This uniformity is striking; it suggests a fixed performance gap that scales across all workloads measured.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 7146 against the i3's 6352, translating to that exact 11.1% deficit. The single-core R23 result follows the same pattern: 1008 for the Xeon versus 896 for the i3. This consistency extends to R20 and R15. The Xeon posts 3001 in R20 multi-core versus 2667, and 423 in single-core versus 376. In R15, the Xeon achieves 720 multi-core and 101 single-core, while the i3 manages 640 and 90, respectively.

What does this mean in practical terms? The Xeon E3-1585 v5 is not just slightly faster; it holds a meaningful, repeatable advantage in every rendering workload tested. The i3-9350KF never once takes the lead. This is unusual for a head-to-head comparison, as most processors trade wins across different test types. Here, the data shows a single dominant direction.

Digging deeper, the i3's average benchmark score of 2082 sits nearly even with the Xeon's 2067. Yet this aggregate number masks the head-to-head reality. The i3's average is buoyed by its Geekbench scores, which are not present in the Xeon's benchmark list. The Xeon has no Geekbench entries, so the average comparison is incomplete. The Cinebench suite, which both share, tells a clear and consistent story of Xeon superiority.

The deltaPct of -11.1% is identical across all tests, a mathematical fingerprint. This suggests the performance difference is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental throughput gap between the two designs. For any user, the implication is straightforward: the Xeon will complete Cinebench-style tasks about 11% faster, every time.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i3-9350KF has zero benchmark wins to its name in this comparison. That is a stark statistic. The Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins all six head-to-head tests, which means the i3 has no category of demonstrated superiority in the data provided.

For workloads that resemble Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, the Xeon is the clear choice. These tests stress both multi-core and single-core performance. The Xeon's 11.1% advantage applies equally to both, meaning whether a user runs a heavily threaded render or a lightly threaded task, the Xeon pulls ahead by the same margin.

The i3-9350KF does have a higher boost clock, 4.60 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.90 GHz. One might expect this to give the i3 an edge in single-threaded tasks. The data refutes that hypothesis. Despite the 0.70 GHz clock advantage, the i3 trails by 11.1% in every single-core test. This is a significant finding: raw clock speed alone does not determine single-thread performance in this matchup.

The Xeon also benefits from Hyper-Threading, offering 8 threads versus the i3's 4. While the multi-core delta is the same 11.1% as single-core, the thread advantage likely contributes to the Xeon's sustained lead. The i3, despite its higher clocks, cannot overcome the architectural and thread-count gap.

For a desktop user building a gaming or general-purpose rig, the i3's higher clocks might seem attractive. But the benchmark data does not support that choice for compute-heavy tasks. The Xeon wins everywhere, with no caveats or exceptions in the provided results.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and eras. The Core i3-9350KF is based on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, built on a 14 nm process with a die size of 126 mm². The Xeon E3-1585 v5 uses Skylake, specifically Skylake-H, also on 14 nm but with a larger die at 171 mm² and 2,300 million transistors.

Both share the same 14 nm node and foundry, Intel. The cache hierarchy is identical in structure: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. This means the raw cache capacity is not a differentiator. The difference lies in the core architecture and the additional features each brings.

The Xeon integrates Iris Pro Graphics P580, a significant integrated GPU. The i3-9350KF has no integrated graphics at all, as indicated by the null field. This is a major architectural divergence. The Xeon is a system-on-chip solution capable of graphics output, while the i3 requires a discrete GPU for any display output.

The memory controllers also differ. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3 only supports DDR4. Both are dual-channel, but the Xeon's memory bandwidth is rated at 34.1 GB/s, slightly lower than the i3's 38.4 GB/s. This is a curious inversion: the slower-listed memory bandwidth belongs to the faster benchmark performer.

The Xeon's socket is BGA 1440, meaning it is soldered to the board, while the i3 uses Socket 1151, a standard LGA socket. This has implications for upgradeability and system design. The Xeon targets server/workstation platforms, while the i3 is a desktop part. Both support ECC memory, a feature more commonly associated with server parts but present in both here.

Specification Differences

Several specification fields differ between the two processors. The most obvious is core count and threading. The i3 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon's Hyper-Threading doubles its thread count.

Clock speeds differ substantially. The i3 has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost of 4.60 GHz. The Xeon runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. The i3 is 0.50 GHz faster at base and 0.70 GHz faster at boost.

Thermal design power differs significantly. The i3 is rated at 91 W, while the Xeon is rated at 65 W. This is counterintuitive given the Xeon's performance advantage; it delivers more performance at a lower TDP. The Xeon's transistor count of 2,300 million and die size of 171 mm² are larger than the i3's 126 mm², yet it consumes less power.

Memory support is another differentiator. The i3 supports only DDR4, while the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4. Memory bandwidth ratings differ: 38.4 GB/s for the i3 versus 34.1 GB/s for the Xeon. Integrated graphics are present on the Xeon (Iris Pro Graphics P580) and absent on the i3.

Release dates place the Xeon as the older part, launched in May 2016, while the i3 came in January 2019. Both are now end-of-life. The launch MSRP for the i3 is $173, and for the Xeon it is $556. The part numbers are SRF7V for the i3 and SR2RB for the Xeon. The market segments differ: the i3 is Desktop, the Xeon is Server/Workstation.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Core i3-9350KF has a base clock of 4.00 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is slower at 3.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1585 v5 support integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Iris Pro Graphics P580. The Core i3-9350KF has no integrated graphics, as indicated in the specification data.

Q: Which CPU has better multi-threaded performance?

A: The Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins all multi-core tests by 11.1%. For example, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 7146 versus the i3's 6352.

Q: Are both processors end-of-life?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life. The Xeon was released in May 2016, and the i3 was released in January 2019.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core i3-9350KF and the Xeon E3-1585 v5 support ECC memory, despite the i3 being a desktop part.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The i3-9350KF has a rated memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon E3-1585 v5 is rated at 34.1 GB/s. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i3 supports only DDR4.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is the faster processor in every benchmark test provided. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons with a consistent 11.1% margin. There is no test where the Core i3-9350KF takes the lead.

For users prioritizing raw compute performance in Cinebench-style workloads, the Xeon is the clear pick. Its 8 threads and lower TDP of 65 W, combined with integrated graphics, make it a compelling package despite its higher launch MSRP of $556 versus the i3's $173.

The Core i3-9350KF does offer higher clock speeds and greater memory bandwidth, but these advantages do not translate into benchmark wins. The i3's 4 threads and lack of integrated graphics are notable limitations. Its only potential edge is the standard LGA socket, which offers easier upgradeability compared to the Xeon's BGA 1440.

For a server or workstation build where compute throughput is paramount, the Xeon E3-1585 v5 is the data-backed choice. For a desktop user who values socket flexibility and has a discrete GPU, the i3 is a viable but slower option. The benchmarks do not lie: 6 wins to 0, with every win sharing the same 11.1% delta.

The percentile rankings are identical at 46 for both, indicating similar standing among all CPUs. But in a direct head-to-head, the Xeon's consistent 11.1% advantage is the defining statistic. Choose the Xeon for performance, the i3 for the socket and clock speed, and accept the performance gap in return.