Intel Core i5-1035G1 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-3175X and the Intel Core i5-1035G1 occupy opposite ends of the processor spectrum. The Xeon W-3175X is a 28-core workstation monster, while the i5-1035G1 is a 4-core mobile chip. Benchmark data shows the Xeon wins every recorded head-to-head test by a massive margin, yet both processors hold nearly identical overall percentile rankings. The Xeon W-3175X sits at the 66th percentile of all CPUs, while the i5-1035G1 sits at the 65th. This apparent contradiction resolves when examining the benchmark suites: the Xeon’s scores come from heavy multi-threaded workloads, while the i5’s average includes additional tests where its architecture performs relatively better.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the Intel Core i5-1035G1 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How large is the difference in multi-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon W-3175X scores 38692 compared to the i5-1035G1’s 6062, a difference of 538.3 percent. The same 538.3 percent gap appears in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Does the i5-1035G1 win any benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Xeon W-3175X wins all 6 tests, and the i5-1035G1 wins 0.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Xeon W-3175X has a TDP of 255 watts, while the i5-1035G1 has a TDP of 15 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W-3175X supports ECC memory, while the i5-1035G1 does not.

Q: What are their production statuses?

A: The Xeon W-3175X is end-of-life, while the i5-1035G1 is active.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and manufacturing processes. The Xeon W-3175X uses the Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-W codename, built on a 14 nm process node. The i5-1035G1 uses the Ice Lake architecture, specifically the Sunny Cove-U codename, built on a 10 nm process node. This process difference is significant: the i5 uses a newer manufacturing node despite being a much smaller and lower-power chip.

The die sizes reflect their different roles. The Xeon W-3175X has a die size of 688 mm² and contains 8,000 million transistors. The i5-1035G1 has a die size of 123 mm², with no transistor count recorded in the database. The Xeon’s massive die houses 28 cores and 56 threads, while the i5’s smaller die houses 4 cores and 8 threads.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Xeon W-3175X has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 38.5 MB L3 cache. The i5-1035G1 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The Xeon’s total cache pool is far larger, which helps in multi-threaded workloads that repeatedly access the same data.

Memory architecture separates the two further. The Xeon W-3175X supports DDR4 memory through a six-channel memory bus, providing a memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s. The i5-1035G1 also supports DDR4 but through a dual-channel bus, providing 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon also offers 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i5 offers PCIe Gen 3 support without a specified lane count in the database.

The i5-1035G1 includes integrated UHD Graphics, while the Xeon W-3175X has no integrated graphics recorded. The Xeon targets the server and workstation market segment, while the i5 targets mobile devices. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 3647 and has an unlocked multiplier. The i5 uses Intel BGA 1526 and has a locked multiplier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon W-3175X wins every one by a consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 3900 against the i5’s 611, a 538.3 percent advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 550 against 86, a 539.5 percent advantage. These percentages are remarkably uniform across all tests, suggesting the gap is driven by the fundamental core and cache differences rather than workload-specific behavior.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same pattern. The Xeon scores 16250 in multi-core versus 2546 for the i5, a 538.3 percent difference. In single-core, the Xeon scores 2294 versus 359, a 539 percent difference. The single-core gap is nearly identical to the multi-core gap, which is notable because single-core tests typically favor the newer architecture and higher per-core performance of a smaller chip. The i5’s newer 10 nm Ice Lake architecture does not close the single-core gap against the older 14 nm Skylake-W Xeon.

Cinebench R23 shows the largest absolute scores. The Xeon scores 38692 in multi-core versus 6062 for the i5, again a 538.3 percent difference. In single-core, the Xeon scores 5462 versus 855, a 538.8 percent difference. The consistency of these deltas, all hovering near 538 to 539 percent, indicates that the performance ratio between the two chips is stable across different render workloads and versions of the test.

Beyond the head-to-head tests, the i5-1035G1 has additional PassMark benchmark results not recorded for the Xeon. These include data compression at 80534, data encryption at 4094, extended instructions at 5524, find prime numbers at 19, floating point math at 15483, integer math at 26645, multithread at 7211, physics at 423, random string sorting at 9782, and single thread at 2198. The Xeon has no corresponding PassMark results in the database, so direct comparison on these tests is not possible.

Specification Differences

The core count difference is the most striking specification gap. The Xeon W-3175X provides 28 cores and 56 threads, while the i5-1035G1 provides 4 cores and 8 threads. This is a 7x difference in core count and a 7x difference in thread count.

Clock speeds differ in an unusual way. The Xeon has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The i5-1035G1 has a base clock listed as 1000.00 MHz, which converts to 1.00 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Xeon’s base clock is over three times higher than the i5’s base clock, while its boost clock is only about 19 percent higher.

Power consumption shows the greatest relative difference. The Xeon W-3175X has a TDP of 255 watts, while the i5-1035G1 has a TDP of 15 watts. The Xeon consumes 17 times the power of the i5. This makes sense given the core count and clock speed differences, but it also means the i5 is designed for passive cooling or small fans in thin laptops, while the Xeon requires substantial workstation cooling.

The cache specifications differ per core. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core, while the i5 has 80 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The i5 actually has more L1 cache per core, but the Xeon’s 28 cores multiply that per-core allocation into a much larger total. The L3 cache is 38.5 MB shared for the Xeon versus 6 MB shared for the i5.

Memory bandwidth and channel count differ significantly. The Xeon uses six-channel memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5 uses dual-channel memory with 51.2 GB/s. ECC memory support exists only on the Xeon. PCIe lane support is also asymmetric: the Xeon provides 48 Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i5’s PCIe Gen 3 lane count is not specified in the database.

The release dates are close. The Xeon W-3175X launched on January 29, 2019, and the i5-1035G1 launched on July 31, 2019. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the i5 remains active. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $2999, while the i5 has no launch MSRP recorded. The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, the i5 does not. The Xeon’s part number is SRF6LQRDK; the i5’s is SRGKGSRGKL.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W-3175X wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark. Its 28 cores and 56 threads dominate multi-threaded render workloads, as shown by the Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 38692 versus 6062. The Xeon also wins single-core tests by the same margin, which means it does not sacrifice single-thread performance despite its massive core count. The Xeon’s six-channel memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth and 38.5 MB L3 cache make it suited for data-heavy workstation tasks. ECC memory support and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes further position it for server and workstation environments where data integrity and expansion capacity matter.

The i5-1035G1 wins in efficiency and mobility. Its 15 watt TDP versus the Xeon’s 255 watts means it can operate in fanless or low-power laptop designs. Its 10 nm process node represents a newer manufacturing technology than the Xeon’s 14 nm node, which contributes to its lower power draw. The i5’s integrated UHD Graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU, which is impossible on the Xeon since it has no integrated graphics. The i5’s active production status means it remains available for new designs, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

The i5’s PassMark results show strengths in specific workloads, though no direct Xeon comparison exists. Data compression at 80534 and integer math at 26645 indicate respectable performance for a mobile chip. The i5’s single thread PassMark score of 2198 is notable given its low power envelope. However, the i5’s find prime numbers score of 19 and physics score of 423 are low, suggesting weak performance in integer-heavy and physics simulation tasks relative to other processors in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon W-3175X is the overwhelmingly faster processor in every benchmark where both were measured. The 538.3 percent multi-core advantage in Cinebench R23, the 539.5 percent single-core advantage in Cinebench R15, and the consistent wins across all six head-to-head tests leave no ambiguity. Anyone choosing between these two for raw computational throughput should select the Xeon, provided they can accommodate its 255 watt TDP and workstation platform requirements.

The Intel Core i5-1035G1 is the appropriate choice for mobile or low-power systems where the Xeon physically cannot fit. Its 15 watt TDP, integrated graphics, and BGA 1526 socket target thin-and-light laptops. The i5’s 10 nm process and active production status make it a current product, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The i5 also offers a more modern architecture in Ice Lake, which may provide better instruction-level efficiency per watt, although the recorded benchmarks do not show it closing the performance gap against the Xeon.

The Xeon W-3175X carries a launch MSRP of $2999, while the i5-1035G1 has no recorded launch MSRP, reflecting their different market positions. The Xeon’s nearest rivals in the database, such as the Intel Xeon Gold 6338N with an average score of 10347 and the Intel Xeon Platinum 8280 at 10230, all sit close to its average benchmark score of 10369. The i5’s nearest rivals, including the Intel Core i7-3770 at 9706 and the Intel Core i7-7700HQ at 9493, sit close to its average of 9684. Both processors occupy similar percentile territory, but they achieve it through entirely different means: the Xeon through sheer core count and the i5 through efficient modern architecture in a mobile form factor. For a workstation requiring maximum throughput, choose the Xeon. For a laptop needing adequate performance at minimal power, choose the i5.