Intel Core i5-11320H vs Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in every recorded benchmark comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests. It leads by roughly 5% in every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core test.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two chips?

A: The Xeon E5-4627 v3 is ahead by 4.9% to 5.1% across all six benchmark comparisons. The smallest lead is 4.9% in Cinebench R15 multi-core and R20 single-core; the largest is 5.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core.

Q: Do the two CPUs have different memory configurations?

A: Yes. The Core i5-11320H uses dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 uses quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory while the Core i5 does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Core i5-11320H has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i5-11320H includes Iris XE 96EU integrated graphics. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the production status of each chip?

A: The Core i5-11320H is active in production. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 is end-of-life.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Core i5-11320H is built on Tiger Lake-H, Intel's 10 nm mobile architecture. It is a compact, power-efficient design aimed at laptops and portable workstations. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on Intel's 22 nm process, a server-class design intended for socketed workstations and data center boards.

The Core i5-11320H packs 4 cores and 8 threads with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 offers 10 cores and 20 threads with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Xeon has more than double the core count, but the Core i5 has a significantly higher boost clock, which explains why the single-core gap is so small despite the Xeon winning every test.

Cache layouts differ substantially. The Core i5-11320H has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 25 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's larger L3 pool is typical of server chips designed to feed many cores. The Core i5's larger per-core L2 is a mobile-oriented design choice.

The die sizes reveal the generational gap. The Core i5-11320H has a die size of 146.1 mm², while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has a die size of 356 mm² and packs 2,600 million transistors. The Xeon is physically much larger, which is consistent with its 10-core design on a 22 nm node. The Core i5's smaller die reflects the denser 10 nm process.

Memory support also differs. The Core i5-11320H supports dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and adds ECC memory support. The Xeon's wider memory bus and ECC capability are server-grade features.

PCIe connectivity is another differentiator. The Core i5-11320H provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon E5-4627 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon has double the lane count but on an older generation. The Core i5 has newer PCIe Gen 4 support, which matters for fast SSDs and GPUs in mobile systems.

Socket and market segment are fundamentally different. The Core i5-11320H uses Intel BGA 1449 and targets the mobile segment. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3 and targets the server/workstation segment. The Xeon's TDP of 135 W is far above the Core i5's 28 W, reflecting the server chip's higher power budget.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent pattern: the Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins every single test, but the margins are surprisingly narrow given the core count disparity. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 971 against the Core i5's 923, a 4.9% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 137 against 130, a 5.1% lead.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same trend. The Xeon posts 4049 in multi-core versus the Core i5's 3846, a 5% lead. In single-core, the Xeon scores 571 versus 543, a 4.9% lead. The margin in multi-core is not as large as the 10-core versus 4-core matchup might suggest, which indicates that the Core i5's higher boost clock and newer architecture compensate for its lower core count.

Cinebench R23 shows the same story. The Xeon achieves 9642 in multi-core against the Core i5's 9158, a 5% lead. In single-core, the Xeon scores 1361 against 1293, also a 5% lead. The Xeon's single-core advantage is consistent across all three Cinebench versions, which is notable because single-core performance typically favors newer architectures with higher clocks.

The Core i5-11320H also has Geekbench results in the database: 5620 multi-core and 1592 single-core. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 has no Geekbench scores recorded, so no direct comparison is possible for that test suite.

The overall benchmark averages place the two chips close together. The Core i5-11320H has an average benchmark score of 2888, and the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has an average of 2789. Both sit at the 51st percentile among all CPUs. The Core i5's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2414 at 2905 (0.6% higher), the Intel Core i5-1335UE at 2907 (0.7% higher), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 at 2909 (0.7% higher), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5475U at 2865 (0.8% lower). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-11300H at 2792 (0.1% higher), the Intel Core i7-5930K at 2775 (0.5% lower), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 4350G at 2774 (0.5% lower), and the Intel Core i5-8600K at 2807 (0.6% higher).

Despite the Xeon winning all six head-to-head tests, the average benchmark scores tell a different story. The Core i5-11320H has a higher average score across all recorded benchmarks, which reflects its Geekbench results that are not present for the Xeon. This discrepancy highlights the importance of test selection when evaluating these two processors.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins every Cinebench test by roughly 5%, but the Core i5-11320H has a higher overall average benchmark score due to its Geekbench performance. The Xeon's advantage in Cinebench is consistent and uniform, never dipping below 4.9% or exceeding 5.1%.

For pure Cinebench workloads, the Xeon E5-4627 v3 is the stronger choice. Its 10 cores and 20 threads deliver a measurable lead in both multi-core and single-core rendering tests. The Core i5-11320H, despite its newer architecture and higher boost clock, cannot overcome the Xeon's core count advantage in these specific tests.

However, the Core i5-11320H is not far behind. A 5% deficit in Cinebench is a small margin, and the Core i5's Geekbench scores suggest it is competitive in other workloads. The Core i5 also offers integrated graphics, a mobile form factor, and a 28 W TDP, making it suitable for portable systems.

The Xeon E5-4627 v3 is an end-of-life server chip with a 135 W TDP, no integrated graphics, and a socketed form factor. It belongs in a workstation or server chassis, not a laptop. The Core i5-11320H is an active mobile processor designed for thin-and-light systems.

The decision comes down to platform and workload. If the system must be mobile and power-efficient, the Core i5-11320H is the only viable option. If the system is a stationary workstation with a server motherboard, the Xeon E5-4627 v3 offers a small but consistent performance edge in Cinebench.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification. The Core i5-11320H has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads. Base clocks are close: 2.50 GHz for the Core i5 and 2.60 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are not: the Core i5 reaches 4.50 GHz, while the Xeon tops out at 3.20 GHz.

TDP is a major split. The Core i5-11320H draws 28 W, while the Xeon E5-4627 v3 draws 135 W. Process nodes differ: the Core i5 uses 10 nm, the Xeon uses 22 nm. Die size is 146.1 mm² for the Core i5 and 356 mm² for the Xeon. The Xeon has 2,600 million transistors; the Core i5 has no transistor count recorded.

Cache configurations are distinct. The Core i5 has 80 KB L1 per core, 1.25 MB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 25 MB shared L3. Memory bandwidth favors the Xeon at 68.3 GB/s versus 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core i5 does not.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The Core i5 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Xeon offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The Core i5 has integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics; the Xeon has none. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1449 for the Core i5, Intel Socket 2011-3 for the Xeon.

Market segments and production statuses also differ. The Core i5 is a mobile chip, active in production, released on 2021-06-20. The Xeon is a server/workstation chip, end-of-life, released on 2015-05-31. The Core i5 has a launch MSRP of $309; the Xeon has a launch MSRP of $2225. Both have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins in every Cinebench test recorded. If the workload is Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, whether single-core or multi-core, the Xeon comes out ahead by approximately 5%. This makes it the stronger choice for rendering tasks that follow the Cinebench pattern, especially in a workstation with a server motherboard and quad-channel memory.

The Core i5-11320H wins in Geekbench, where it posts 5620 multi-core and 1592 single-core scores. These results are not directly comparable to the Xeon since the Xeon has no Geekbench data, but the Core i5's overall average benchmark score of 2888 exceeds the Xeon's 2789. This suggests the Core i5 performs better in the broader set of workloads represented by Geekbench.

The Core i5-11320H is the clear winner for mobile use cases. Its 28 W TDP, integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics, and BGA 1449 socket make it suitable for laptops and compact systems. The Xeon's 135 W TDP and lack of integrated graphics require a dedicated GPU and a substantial cooling solution.

The Xeon E5-4627 v3 is the winner for server-class memory needs. Its quad-channel DDR4 support with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory capability make it appropriate for error-sensitive workloads. The Core i5's dual-channel memory without ECC cannot match this.

The Core i5-11320H wins on PCIe generation with Gen 4 support, which benefits modern NVMe SSDs and GPUs. The Xeon has more lanes at 40, but they are Gen 3. For systems using the latest storage devices, the Core i5's Gen 4 interface is a practical advantage.

The Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins on core count and thread count, which matters for heavily threaded workloads beyond Cinebench, even if the recorded benchmark margin is only 5%. The Core i5-11320H wins on clock speed, with a 4.50 GHz boost versus the Xeon's 3.20 GHz, which explains its competitive single-core performance despite the Xeon's win.