Intel Core i5-11260H vs Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-11260H and the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 are two fundamentally different processors, one a modern mobile chip and the other an older server/workstation part. Benchmark results show the Core i5-11260H winning every single head-to-head test, but the margins are consistently narrow. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 offers double the cores and threads, while the Core i5-11260H counters with a much higher boost clock and a newer architecture. The recorded data shows a clear split: the Core i5-11260H is the better performer in every measured workload, while the Xeon E5-2658A v3 remains relevant primarily for its platform features like ECC memory support and quad-channel memory bandwidth.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i5-11260H wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. It takes all six head-to-head comparisons, covering both single-core and multi-core tests across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its wins range from a 2% margin in Cinebench R15 multi-core to a 2.2% margin in Cinebench R15 single-core. This means for tasks that rely on raw CPU rendering speed, the Core i5-11260H is consistently ahead, though not by a dramatic amount. The data shows it also wins on the Geekbench tests, with a multi-core score of 5780 and a single-core score of 1595, tests that the Xeon E5-2658A v3 does not have recorded scores for.

The Xeon E5-2658A v3 does not win any of the recorded benchmarks. Its advantage lies outside of performance scores. It has 12 cores and 24 threads compared to the Core i5-11260H's 6 cores and 12 threads. It also supports ECC memory, which the Core i5-11260H does not. The Xeon's quad-channel memory bus provides a theoretical memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, higher than the Core i5's dual-channel 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon is also designed for the server and workstation market segment, with support for 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Core i5 is a mobile chip with 20 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. So the Xeon wins on platform capabilities and core count, but not on any measured benchmark score.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-11260H wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. It scores 183 in Cinebench R15, 764 in R20, and 1821 in R23. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 scores 179, 749, and 1785 in the same tests, giving the Core i5 a 2.2% lead in R15 and a 2% lead in R20 and R23.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-2658A v3 win any multi-core benchmark?

A: No. The Core i5-11260H wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 1300 in R15, 5420 in R20, and 12905 in R23, compared to the Xeon's 1274, 5311, and 12647. The Core i5's lead is 2% in R15 and R23, and 2.1% in R20.

Q: What is the core and thread difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core i5-11260H has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon has double the core count and double the thread count.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-2658A v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-11260H does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon E5-2658A v3 supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Core i5-11260H supports dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth.

Q: What is the market segment for each processor?

A: The Core i5-11260H is a mobile processor, while the Xeon E5-2658A v3 is a server and workstation processor. The Xeon is listed as end-of-life, while the Core i5 is listed as active.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a sweep for the Core i5-11260H, but the margins are worth examining closely. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i5 scores 1300 against the Xeon's 1274, a 2% lead. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story with a score of 183 versus 179, a 2.2% lead, which is the largest margin of any test in the comparison. This pattern holds in Cinebench R20 where the Core i5 scores 5420 in multi-core and 764 in single-core, compared to the Xeon's 5311 and 749. These are leads of 2.1% and 2% respectively.

Cinebench R23 results continue the trend. The Core i5-11260H scores 12905 in multi-core and 1821 in single-core. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 scores 12647 and 1785. Both margins are 2%. The consistency of these results is notable. The Core i5 wins every test by a similar margin, regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded. This suggests that the Core i5's architectural advantages, such as its higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, are enough to overcome the Xeon's core count advantage of 12 cores versus 6. The Geekbench scores further support this, with the Core i5 recording 5780 multi-core and 1595 single-core, though no Geekbench scores are available for the Xeon in the database.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ significantly in their core configurations and clock speeds. The Core i5-11260H has 6 cores and 12 threads with a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads with a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz. The Xeon has a slightly higher base clock but a much lower boost clock. The TDP also differs greatly: the Core i5 is rated at 35 watts while the Xeon is rated at 105 watts.

The memory support differs as well. The Core i5 uses dual-channel memory with a bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon uses quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but not on the Core i5. PCIe support also differs: the Core i5 has Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Xeon has Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The Core i5 includes integrated UHD Graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Core i5 uses the Intel BGA 1787 socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. The production status also differs, with the Core i5 listed as active and the Xeon listed as end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The Core i5-11260H is built on Intel's Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-H, using a 10 nm process node. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 uses the older Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, on a 22 nm process node. This process node difference is significant, as the newer 10 nm node allows for higher clock speeds and better efficiency. The die size reflects this difference, with the Core i5 measuring 190 mm² and the Xeon measuring 356 mm². The Xeon also has a listed transistor count of 2,600 million, while the Core i5's transistor count is not recorded.

Cache configurations also differ. The Core i5 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, with 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is consistent with its server positioning. The Core i5's release date is recorded as May 2021, while the Xeon's release date is not recorded. The Core i5's launch MSRP is $250, while the Xeon's launch MSRP is $1832.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i5-11260H as the superior processor in terms of raw benchmark performance. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 2% to 2.2%. It also has a higher boost clock, a newer architecture, and a smaller process node. For users who prioritize single-threaded performance or rendering speed in Cinebench workloads, the Core i5-11260H is the clear choice based on the recorded measurements.

The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3, despite losing every benchmark, still has a role for specific use cases. Its 12 cores and 24 threads provide double the parallelism of the Core i5, which could be relevant for heavily threaded server workloads, even if the Cinebench results do not reflect an advantage. Its support for ECC memory and quad-channel memory with higher bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s makes it suitable for server and workstation environments where data integrity and memory throughput are critical. The Xeon also offers more PCIe lanes, 40 Gen 3 lanes versus 20 Gen 4 lanes. The data shows the Core i5 wins on performance, but the Xeon wins on platform features. The choice depends entirely on whether the user needs benchmark speed or server-specific capabilities like ECC support and higher memory bandwidth.