Intel Core i5-11300H vs Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-11300H and the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 are separated by six years of silicon evolution, yet their average benchmark scores are nearly identical. The data shows the Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins every head-to-head benchmark included, but by a narrow margin of roughly 5% in each test. The i5-11300H counters with a far more modern architecture, a lower thermal envelope, and integrated graphics, making this a clash between raw multi-threaded capacity and contemporary efficiency.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Intel Core i5-11300H is built on Tiger Lake-H, Intel’s 10 nm process node, while the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm node. This process difference is a primary driver of their divergent characteristics—the newer 10 nm node allows the mobile chip to achieve higher clock speeds while consuming significantly less power.

The i5-11300H features a smaller die size of 146.1 mm², whereas the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has a much larger die at 356 mm². The Xeon also packs 2,600 million transistors, a figure not listed for the Core chip. The cache layouts differ considerably: the i5-11300H provides 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 offers 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but a much larger 25 MB of shared L3 cache. This larger last-level cache is typical of server-oriented parts designed for data-heavy workloads.

The Core i5-11300H integrates Iris XE 80EU graphics, a feature entirely absent from the Xeon E5-4627 v3, which has no integrated graphics. The mobile chip also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The i5-11300H is marked as Active in production status, while the Xeon is End-of-life, reflecting their respective market positions as a current mobile part versus a legacy server/workstation chip.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ across nearly every major specification field. The most obvious divergence is core count: the i5-11300H has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads. This gives the Xeon a 2.5x advantage in thread count, which is partially offset by clock speed differences.

The i5-11300H boosts to 4.40 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz boost clock. Both share the same 2.60 GHz base clock. The thermal design power (TDP) tells a stark story: the mobile chip is rated at 28 W, while the server chip draws 135 W. This nearly 5x difference in TDP explains why the Xeon can house more cores but at lower clocks.

Memory support differs as well. Both support DDR4, but the i5-11300H uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 uses a quad-channel bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature the Core chip lacks. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the i5-11300H uses Intel BGA 1449, a soldered mobile socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a desktop/workstation socket.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, yet the margins are remarkably consistent and small. It leads by 5.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 5.8% in R15 single-core, 5.3% in R20 multi-core, 5.4% in R20 single-core, 5.3% in R23 multi-core, and 5.4% in R23 single-core. This suggests the Xeon’s advantage comes from its higher per-core efficiency in these specific tests, despite its lower boost clock.

The i5-11300H wins in the practical realms of mobility and system integration. Its 28 W TDP makes it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the Xeon’s 135 W TDP demands a substantial cooling solution. The Core chip’s integrated Iris XE 80EU graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems, while the Xeon requires a separate graphics card. The i5-11300H also benefits from being an Active product with PCIe Gen 4 support, making it a more forward-looking choice for new designs.

The Xeon wins on memory bandwidth and capacity for server workloads, with its quad-channel 68.3 GB/s interface and ECC support. The i5-11300H, with its dual-channel 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, is less suited for memory-intensive server tasks but adequate for mobile productivity.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, compared to the Intel Core i5-11300H’s 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The i5-11300H boosts to 4.40 GHz, while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 boosts to 3.20 GHz. Both have the same 2.60 GHz base clock.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-4627 v3 supports ECC memory, while the i5-11300H does not.

Q: Which chip has a smaller manufacturing process node?

A: The i5-11300H is built on a 10 nm process, while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 uses a 22 nm process.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for each?

A: The i5-11300H has a TDP of 28 W, and the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has a TDP of 135 W.

Q: Which CPU includes integrated graphics?

A: The i5-11300H includes Iris XE 80EU integrated graphics; the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-4627 v3 sweeps the benchmark suite, but the victory is narrow across the board. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 971 against the i5-11300H’s 919, a 5.4% margin. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 137 for the Xeon versus 129, a 5.8% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 4049 in multi-core versus 3833, a 5.3% edge, and 571 in single-core versus 540, a 5.4% margin.

The most modern benchmark, Cinebench R23, continues the trend. The Xeon scores 9642 in multi-core against 9127, a 5.3% advantage, and 1361 in single-core versus 1288, a 5.4% edge. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the Xeon’s 2789 average is just 0.1% behind the i5-11300H’s 2792, making them statistically equivalent in overall performance. Both chips sit at the 51st percentile of all CPUs, reinforcing their near-equal standing in the broader performance hierarchy.

The i5-11300H’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-8600K, which scores 2807 on average (0.5% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G at 2774 (0.6% lower). For the Xeon, the nearest alternative is the Intel Core i7-5930K at 2775 (0.5% higher). These figures show both chips occupy a crowded mid-range performance tier.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear split decision based on use case. If the priority is raw compute performance in a workstation or server context, the Xeon E5-4627 v3 is the winner—it leads in all six head-to-head benchmarks, offers 10 cores and 20 threads, supports ECC memory, and provides higher memory bandwidth via its quad-channel interface. Its 25 MB of L3 cache and 68.3 GB/s bandwidth make it the more capable part for sustained, memory-heavy workloads.

If the priority is a modern, efficient mobile system, the i5-11300H is the obvious choice. Its 28 W TDP, integrated Iris XE 80EU graphics, and PCIe Gen 4 support make it far better suited to laptop designs. The 10 nm process node and higher 4.40 GHz boost clock deliver competitive performance with a fraction of the power draw. The i5-11300H is also an Active product, while the Xeon is End-of-life, making the Core chip a safer bet for new purchases.

The benchmark deltas are so small—never exceeding 5.8%—that real-world differences will be minor in most applications. The Xeon’s edge comes from its superior thread count and memory subsystem, while the i5-11300H trades some performance for portability and modern features. Neither chip is a clear overall winner; the correct choice hinges entirely on whether the system needs to be mobile or stationary. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 is a legacy server workhorse, while the i5-11300H is a current-generation mobile processor. Both deliver nearly identical average scores, but their intended environments could not be more different.