Intel Core i3-9350KF vs Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins every single head-to-head test in this comparison. Across all six Cinebench runs, the Xeon posts a consistent lead of roughly 11.5% over the Core i3-9350KF. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 7179 against the i3's 6352, a gap of 827 points. The single-core R23 result shows the same pattern, with the Xeon at 1013 versus 896 for the i3. This consistency matters—it is not a workload-specific advantage but a broad performance edge.

The largest single delta appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon leads by 11.8% (102 vs. 90). The multi-core R15 delta is slightly smaller at 11.5% (723 vs. 640). The R20 tests mirror the R15 results almost exactly: 11.5% deltas in both multi-core (3015 vs. 2667) and single-core (425 vs. 376). The average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the i3 averages 2082, while the Xeon averages 2076. The delta between them is a mere 0.3%, placing both processors within the same performance class despite the Xeon's consistent head-to-head wins.

When placed against the wider market, both CPUs sit at the 46th percentile of all processors. The nearest rivals list shows how tightly grouped this performance tier is. The Xeon W-2123 averages 2079, just 0.2% above the i3 and 0.1% above the Xeon. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 averages 2086, a 0.2% edge over the i3 and 0.5% over the Xeon. The AMD Ryzen 7 1700X leads this group at 2094, sitting 0.6% above the i3. In practical terms, these are near-identical overall performers, even though the Xeon wins every direct comparison test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different platforms. The Core i3-9350KF uses Coffee Lake, a 14 nm design with a die size of 126 mm². The Xeon E5-2628 v3 is a Haswell-EP part, built on the older 22 nm process, with a substantially larger die at 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. The process node difference is significant—14 nm versus 22 nm—but the Xeon compensates with more silicon area and a much larger cache.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply. The i3 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon doubles that to 8 cores and 16 threads. This explains the Xeon's multi-core lead despite its lower clocks. The i3 runs at a 4.00 GHz base and 4.60 GHz boost, while the Xeon is clocked far lower at 2.50 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The Xeon's single-core advantage, despite a 1.6 GHz lower boost clock, is notable. It suggests the Haswell-EP architecture delivers higher instructions per clock in these workloads, or that the benchmark conditions favor it.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is much larger on the Xeon: 20 MB shared versus 8 MB shared on the i3. This 12 MB difference can matter in cache-sensitive workloads. Memory support also diverges. The i3 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 38.4 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses quad-channel DDR4 at 68.3 GB/s—nearly double the bandwidth. Both support ECC memory, which is unusual for a desktop part like the i3.

Platform and expansion differ completely. The i3 uses Intel Socket 1151 with 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3 with 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation, while the i3 is a Desktop part. The i3 has no integrated graphics, and neither does the Xeon. The i3 launched in January 2019 with a $173 launch MSRP; the Xeon launched in September 2014 with no listed MSRP. Both are now end-of-life products, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for raw performance: the Xeon E5-2628 v3 takes every head-to-head benchmark by roughly 11.5%. If the only question is which chip scores higher in Cinebench, the Xeon is the answer. The 8-core, 16-thread configuration with 20 MB of L3 cache and quad-channel memory gives it a structural advantage that the i3's higher clocks cannot overcome.

However, the average benchmark scores tell a more nuanced story. The i3's 2082 average and the Xeon's 2076 average are separated by just 0.3%. The nearest rival list includes both chips within a 0.6% band, alongside the Xeon W-2123 and AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544. This means the Xeon's head-to-head wins do not translate into a meaningful overall performance lead. The i3 is competitive in aggregate, likely due to its higher clock speeds boosting other workload types not captured in the head-to-head Cinebench runs.

Platform considerations favor the i3 for most desktop users. The LGA 1151 socket and dual-channel DDR4 are common consumer components, while the Xeon requires the LGA 2011-3 platform with quad-channel memory and a server-oriented chipset. The i3's 91 W TDP is higher than the Xeon's 85 W, but the Xeon's older 22 nm process means it draws more power per unit of work. For a builder with an existing LGA 1151 board, the i3 is the practical choice. For a workstation builder who needs 8 cores, 16 threads, and 40 PCIe lanes, the Xeon justifies its platform costs with superior multi-threaded throughput.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-9350KF | Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 4 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 4.00 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 91 W | 85 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Haswell |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | Not listed | 2,600 million |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 356 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 38.4 GB/s | 68.3 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2019-01-07 | 2014-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $173 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRF7V | SR201 |

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 scores 7179 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core i3-9350KF scores 6352. The Xeon leads by 11.5%.

Q: Does the Core i3-9350KF win any head-to-head benchmark?

A: No. In the six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins all of them. The i3 has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: What is the overall performance difference between these two CPUs?

A: The average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The i3 averages 2082 and the Xeon averages 2076, a difference of just 0.3%. Both sit at the 46th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Core i3-9350KF and the Xeon E5-2628 v3 support ECC memory. The i3 is unusual in this regard for a desktop part.

Q: Which CPU has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Core i3-9350KF has 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon's lane count is more suited to workstation expansion.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both the Core i3-9350KF and the Xeon E5-2628 v3 are marked as end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins every Cinebench workload in the head-to-head data. Multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, and any task that scales beyond 4 threads will favor the Xeon's 8 cores and 16 threads. The 20 MB L3 cache and 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth are meaningful for server-style workloads that stream large datasets. The 40 PCIe lanes allow multiple GPUs, NVMe drives, and high-speed networking cards without lane contention. This is the chip for a compute node or a workstation that runs sustained, parallel workloads.

The Core i3-9350KF does not win a single head-to-head benchmark, but it is not without merit. Its 4.60 GHz boost clock is 1.6 GHz higher than the Xeon's 3.00 GHz boost, which gives it a latency advantage in lightly threaded tasks that do not appear in the Cinebench results. The 14 nm process is two generations newer than the Xeon's 22 nm, meaning better power efficiency per operation. The LGA 1151 platform uses standard desktop components, and the 16 PCIe lanes are sufficient for a single GPU and a couple of NVMe drives. For a gaming rig or a general-purpose desktop, the i3 is the more sensible fit, even if the benchmark scores favor the Xeon.

The average benchmark scores suggest a practical conclusion: these chips are peers in overall performance. The Xeon's head-to-head wins are real but narrow, and the i3's higher clocks keep it within striking distance. Choose the Xeon for core-heavy, bandwidth-hungry workloads. Choose the i3 for a desktop build where platform simplicity and clock speed matter more than core count. Neither chip is wrong for the right use case, but the data favors the Xeon for pure compute and the i3 for everyday responsiveness.