Intel Core i5-1038NG7 vs Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 and the Intel Core i5-1038NG7 are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, but they are engineered for entirely different environments: one is a server/workstation part from the Kaby Lake era, the other a mobile chip built on Ice Lake. Benchmark data shows a clear, consistent performance hierarchy between them, with the Xeon winning every single head-to-head test in the Cinebench suite, though the margin is surprisingly narrow given their disparate designs.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across all six compared Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 posts a perfect 6-0 record. The most striking pattern is the consistency of the victory margin. In every multi-core and single-core test from R15 through R23, the Xeon leads by exactly 9.1% or 9.5%. This uniformity suggests the advantage is not workload-dependent but rather a fundamental clock-speed and architecture efficiency edge.

In the multi-core tests, the Xeon scores 818 versus 750 in Cinebench R15, a 9.1% lead. That margin repeats in R20 with 3409 against 3125, and again in R23 with 8119 versus 7441. The story is identical for single-core performance: the Xeon wins R15 at 115 to 105 (9.5%), R20 at 481 to 441 (9.1%), and R23 at 1146 to 1050 (9.1%). The single-core R15 gap is the only test where the delta differs from the standard 9.1%, slightly larger at 9.5%.

These results indicate that the Xeon’s higher base clock of 4.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz, compared to the Core i5’s 2.00 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, translate into a decisive but not overwhelming performance advantage. The Core i5 is not far behind, despite its much lower thermal envelope. The data does not show a single benchmark where the Core i5 takes the lead; its closest result is the R23 multi-core test where it trails by 678 points, which is still a 9.1% deficit.

Notably, the Core i5-1038NG7 has additional Geekbench results in its benchmark list that are not part of the head-to-head comparison. It scores 4919 in Geekbench multi-core and 1354 in single-core. Since there is no corresponding Geekbench score for the Xeon in the provided data, these figures stand alone and cannot be directly compared against the rival.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark wins, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 wins every scenario measured. It is the superior choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench performance, which is a proxy for multi-threaded rendering and single-threaded responsiveness. For users running CPU-intensive tasks like 3D rendering, video encoding, or any application that scales well across cores, the Xeon’s consistent 9.1% multi-core advantage makes it the faster part.

The Core i5-1038NG7 has zero wins in the head-to-head data. However, its benchmark profile does not indicate a complete lack of capability. Its average benchmark score of 2398 is actually higher than the Xeon’s 2348, driven by its strong Geekbench results that are not mirrored for the Xeon. This suggests that in different benchmark suites, the Core i5 may be competitive or even superior, but within the controlled comparison of Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it loses every time.

The use-case split is therefore clear: for applications similar to the Cinebench rendering workloads, the Xeon is the winner. For mobile or power-constrained environments where the 28W TDP of the Core i5 matters, the performance deficit may be an acceptable trade-off, but the raw compute win goes to the Xeon. The Xeon’s 79W TDP is nearly three times higher, indicating it is not designed for the same thermal constraints.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and target different sockets. The Xeon E3-1285 v6 is built on the Kaby Lake architecture with a 14 nm process node, while the Core i5-1038NG7 uses the newer Ice Lake architecture on a 10 nm node. The process shrink gives the Ice Lake chip a smaller die size of 123 mm² compared to the Kaby Lake part’s 160 mm². The older Xeon has a transistor count of 1,400 million, while the transistor count for the Core i5 is not provided.

Cache configurations differ notably. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The Core i5 has a larger 80 KB L1 cache per core, the same 256 KB of L2 per core, but a smaller shared 6 MB L3 cache. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache may contribute to its performance advantage in the rendering tests.

Both support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Core i5 lists a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the Xeon’s bandwidth is not specified. A key difference is ECC memory support: the Xeon supports it, while the Core i5 does not, reflecting the Xeon’s server/workstation positioning. The Xeon uses an Intel Socket 1151, while the Core i5 uses a BGA 1344, making the latter soldered and non-upgradeable. PCIe support also differs, with the Xeon offering Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i5 lists just Gen 3 without lane specification. Integrated graphics differ as well: the Xeon has HD Graphics P630, while the Core i5 has Iris Plus.

The release dates are separated by nearly three years, with the Xeon launching on 2017-07-31 and the Core i5 on 2020-05-03. The Core i5’s production status is listed as end-of-life, while the Xeon’s status is not specified.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion for raw performance: the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 is the faster processor in every compared benchmark. Its 9.1% lead across all multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests is consistent and reproducible. Anyone prioritizing maximum compute throughput for rendering or similar workloads should choose the Xeon, assuming the platform allows for its Socket 1151 and higher 79W TDP.

The Core i5-1038NG7 is not without merit. Its higher average benchmark score of 2398 versus 2348 for the Xeon, driven by Geekbench results, indicates it is a capable mobile processor. Users who need a lower-power solution at 28W, require Iris Plus graphics, or are working within a mobile form factor may find the performance trade-off acceptable. The Core i5 also carries a launch MSRP of $320, which can be stated as a point of reference, though value analysis is outside this scope.

For a server or workstation build where ECC memory is required, the Xeon is the only choice between the two, as the Core i5 lacks that feature. The Xeon’s larger 8 MB L3 cache also gives it a structural advantage in cache-sensitive workloads. In contrast, the Core i5’s 10 nm process and smaller die suggest better power efficiency per unit of work, though the benchmark data does not provide efficiency metrics. The verdict is clear: the Xeon wins on performance, while the Core i5 wins on mobility and power characteristics.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 scores 8119, which is 9.1% higher than the Intel Core i5-1038NG7’s score of 7441.

Q: What is the difference in single-core performance in Cinebench R15?

A: The Xeon E3-1285 v6 scores 115, while the Core i5-1038NG7 scores 105, giving the Xeon a 9.5% advantage.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-1038NG7 does not.

Q: What is the thermal design power (TDP) of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 has a TDP of 79W, while the Intel Core i5-1038NG7 has a much lower TDP of 28W.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i5-1038NG7 has a higher average benchmark score of 2398, compared to the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6’s 2348. This is influenced by Geekbench results that are not available for the Xeon.

Q: What are the cache sizes for each processor?

A: The Xeon E3-1285 v6 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i5-1038NG7 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 | Intel Core i5-1038NG7 |

| :--- | :--- | :--- |

| Base Clock | 4.10 GHz | 2.00 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.50 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 79 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1151 | Intel BGA 1344 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Ice Lake |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 160 mm² | 123 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 51.2 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

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

| Integrated Graphics | HD Graphics P630 | Iris Plus |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | Not specified | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2017-07-31 | 2020-05-03 |

| Launch MSRP | Not provided | $320 |

| Part Number | SR373 | SRG0V |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | Not specified |