Intel Core i5-1130G7 vs Intel Xeon E-2276M Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2276M and the Intel Core i5-1130G7 target entirely different segments, and the benchmark data reflects a clear generational and architectural shift. The Core i5-1130G7, despite having fewer cores and a much lower thermal design power, wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. The Xeon E-2276M retains its relevance only through its specific professional feature set, namely ECC memory support and a server/workstation market designation, not through raw performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-1130G7 is the outright performance winner across all six recorded benchmark comparisons. It wins in both single-core and multi-core workloads, with a consistent margin of roughly 23% in every test. This makes it the clear choice for any user prioritizing raw compute speed, whether that is in lightly threaded applications or fully parallel rendering tasks. The data shows a complete sweep for the Tiger Lake part, with zero benchmark wins recorded for the Xeon.

The Intel Xeon E-2276M wins in the areas that are not captured by raw compute benchmarks. It is the only one of the two with ECC memory support, which is a critical feature for data integrity in professional or server environments. Its market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, whereas the Core i5 is classified as Mobile. The Xeon also carries more physical cores (six versus four) and more threads (twelve versus eight), which suggests it is designed for sustained multi-threaded workloads despite losing in the measured benchmarks. The Xeon E-2276M also uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket and belongs to the Xeon E-2200 series, positioning it for workstation-class mobile systems.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and process nodes. The Intel Xeon E-2276M is built on Coffee Lake-H architecture using Intel's 14 nm process, while the Intel Core i5-1130G7 uses Tiger Lake-U architecture on a 10 nm process. This node difference is a primary factor in the performance gap, as the newer 10 nm process allows for higher efficiency and better performance per clock.

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The Xeon E-2276M has six cores and twelve threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. Its L3 cache is 12 MB shared. The Core i5-1130G7 has four cores and eight threads, but each core features a larger 96 KB L1 and a substantially larger 1.25 MB L2. Its L3 cache is 8 MB shared. Despite having fewer cores, the Core i5's larger per-core caches and newer architecture allow it to outperform the Xeon in every recorded test.

Memory support also diverges. Both support DDR4 in a dual-channel configuration, but the Core i5-1130G7 has a significantly higher memory bandwidth rating of 68.3 GB/s compared to the Xeon's 42.7 GB/s. The Core i5 also supports PCIe Gen 4 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 3. The integrated graphics differ as well, with the Xeon featuring UHD Graphics P630 and the Core i5 featuring Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i5-1130G7 dominates every measured workload. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i5 scores 706 against the Xeon's 544, a delta of 22.9% in favor of the Core i5. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 99 for the Core i5 versus 76 for the Xeon, a 23.2% advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the margins remain consistent. The Core i5 scores 2942 in multi-core versus 2268 for the Xeon, again a 22.9% delta. In R20 single-core, the Core i5 scores 415 versus 320, maintaining the 22.9% lead. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23: the Core i5 scores 7006 in multi-core against 5400 for the Xeon, a 22.9% delta, and 989 in single-core against 762, a 23% delta.

The Geekbench results, which are only recorded for the Xeon E-2276M, show a multi-core score of 5159 and a single-core score of 1440. No comparable Geekbench score is listed for the Core i5-1130G7 in the database, so a direct comparison cannot be made for that specific test. However, the Cinebench results are unambiguous: the Core i5-1130G7 is faster in every recorded scenario.

The average benchmark score places the Core i5-1130G7 at 2026, with a percentile rank of 45 against all CPUs. The Xeon E-2276M has an average score of 1996 and a percentile rank of 44. These scores place both processors in a similar overall performance tier, but the Core i5 achieves this with four cores and a 15 W TDP, while the Xeon requires six cores and a 45 W TDP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-1130G7 wins in every recorded multi-core test. It scores 706 in Cinebench R15 multi-core versus 544 for the Xeon E-2276M, and 7006 in Cinebench R23 multi-core versus 5400, a 22.9% advantage in both cases.

Q: Does the Xeon E-2276M have any advantages?

A: Yes, the Xeon E-2276M supports ECC memory, which the Core i5-1130G7 does not. It is also classified for the Server/Workstation market segment, while the Core i5 is a Mobile processor.

Q: How do their core and thread counts compare?

A: The Xeon E-2276M has six cores and twelve threads. The Core i5-1130G7 has four cores and eight threads.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon E-2276M has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core i5-1130G7 has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz.

Q: What is the performance gap in single-core tests?

A: The Core i5-1130G7 leads by 23.2% in Cinebench R15 single-core (99 versus 76) and by 23% in Cinebench R23 single-core (989 versus 762).

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i5-1130G7 has an average benchmark score of 2026, while the Xeon E-2276M has an average score of 1996. The Core i5 sits at the 45th percentile of all CPUs, and the Xeon at the 44th.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Xeon E-2276M has six cores and twelve threads, while the Core i5-1130G7 has four cores and eight threads. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz. The Core i5 has a base clock of 1100.00 MHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz.

The thermal design power differs significantly: the Xeon is rated at 45 W, while the Core i5 is rated at 15 W. The Xeon uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, and the Core i5 uses the Intel BGA 1598 socket. Architecturally, the Xeon is based on Coffee Lake on a 14 nm process, while the Core i5 uses Tiger Lake on a 10 nm process.

Cache hierarchies are different. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. The Core i5 has 96 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 8 MB of shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors the Core i5 at 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s for the Xeon. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core i5 does not. PCIe support also differs, with the Xeon on Gen 3 and the Core i5 on Gen 4, both with 16 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics P630 for the Xeon and Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU for the Core i5. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the Core i5 is active. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $450; no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core i5.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i5-1130G7 as the superior processor for raw performance. It wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, achieves a higher average benchmark score of 2026 versus 1996, and does so with a fraction of the power draw at 15 W versus 45 W. Its larger per-core caches, newer 10 nm process, and higher memory bandwidth give it a decisive edge in every Cinebench workload recorded. Users who prioritize speed, efficiency, and modern connectivity should select the Core i5-1130G7.

The Intel Xeon E-2276M should be chosen only when its specific professional features are required. It is the sole option with ECC memory support, which is essential for mission-critical data integrity. Its Server/Workstation market segment and six-core, twelve-thread configuration indicate a design philosophy aimed at reliability and multi-threaded endurance rather than peak benchmark performance. For workloads that demand ECC validation, the Xeon E-2276M is the necessary pick, despite its lower scores and older architecture.