Intel Core i5-1145G7 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

The Intel Xeon W-3175X and the Intel Core i5-1145G7 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The data is unambiguous: the Xeon wins all eight head-to-head benchmarks, but the two processors are designed for entirely different workloads. The W-3175X is a 28-core workstation monster built for sustained multi-threaded rendering and simulation, while the i5-1145G7 is a 4-core mobile chip focused on efficiency and integrated graphics. The benchmark scores confirm a massive performance gulf, yet the i5’s single-core Geekbench score is only 0.6% behind the Xeon, showing that architecture matters more than raw core count in lightly threaded tasks.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split is drastic and defined by the benchmark categories. The Xeon W-3175X wins every measured test, but the margin of victory tells the real story. In multi-core workloads, the Xeon is in a different league entirely. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 38692 is 397.5% ahead of the i5’s 7777, a gap that reflects the 28-core versus 4-core disparity. This processor is built for video encoding, 3D rendering, scientific computation, and any workload that can scale across 56 threads. The Geekbench multi-core result of 14331 versus 4066, a 252.5% lead, reinforces this: the Xeon dominates when parallelism is available.

The i5-1145G7 wins in the mobile segment by default, not by benchmark scores. Its 28W TDP and integrated Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where battery life and heat dissipation are critical. The Xeon, with a 255W TDP and no integrated graphics, requires a massive cooling solution and a discrete GPU. The i5 also supports LPDDR4X memory, which is common in ultraportables, while the Xeon is limited to DDR4. For a user who needs a capable processor for everyday tasks, office productivity, and light content creation on battery power, the i5 is the only practical choice, even though it loses every benchmark to the Xeon.

The data also shows the i5's efficiency advantage in single-threaded tests. While the Xeon wins Cinebench R23 single-core with 5462 against 1098, a 397.4% lead, the Geekbench single-core result is nearly tied at 1472 versus 1463, a 0.6% difference. This suggests that for single-threaded applications that are not memory bandwidth bound, the i5’s Tiger Lake architecture with its higher 4.40GHz boost clock can nearly match the Xeon’s 4.30GHz boost. In real-world usage, this means the i5 feels snappy for web browsing, document editing, and light coding, despite its massive disadvantage in multi-threaded tasks.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap is generational and physical. The Xeon W-3175X uses the Skylake-W architecture on Intel’s 14nm process node, with a die size of 688 mm² and 8,000 million transistors. The i5-1145G7 uses the Tiger Lake-U architecture, which is built on the newer 10nm process node and has a much smaller die at 144 mm². The transistor count for the i5 is not recorded, but the die size difference is a clear indicator of the target market: the Xeon is a large, power-hungry server chip, while the i5 is a compact mobile processor.

Core and cache configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon has 28 cores and 56 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache and 1 MB of L2 cache per core, plus a shared 38.5 MB L3 cache. The i5 has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a larger 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, but only 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core cache design is interesting: the i5 actually dedicates more cache to each core, which helps explain its competitive single-threaded Geekbench score. The Xeon’s massive L3 cache is designed to feed 28 cores, not to accelerate a single thread.

Memory support further separates the two. The Xeon uses six-channel DDR4 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s and supports ECC memory, a requirement for workstation reliability. The i5 uses dual-channel DDR4 or LPDDR4X, has no recorded memory bandwidth figure, and does not support ECC. The Xeon also offers 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the i5 offers only 4 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Xeon’s PCIe connectivity is meant for multiple GPUs and NVMe storage arrays, while the i5 has just enough for a single GPU and basic storage.

The Xeon has an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, while the i5 is locked. The Xeon is an end-of-life product released in January 2019, while the i5 is also end-of-life but was released in September 2020. Both are discontinued, but the Xeon’s server pedigree and the i5’s mobile focus define their respective lifecycles.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a consistent pattern: the Xeon leads by roughly 397% to 400% in Cinebench tests, and by 252.5% in Geekbench multi-core, but only 0.6% in Geekbench single-core. This is not a close contest in any measurable way, except for that single-threaded Geekbench result.

Starting with Cinebench R15, the Xeon scores 3900 in multi-core against the i5’s 783, a 398.1% lead. The single-core result is 550 versus 110, a 400% lead. The Xeon’s advantage is remarkably consistent across all Cinebench versions. In R20, the multi-core score is 16250 versus 3266, a 397.6% lead, and single-core is 2294 versus 461, also 397.6%. In R23, the multi-core score is 38692 versus 7777, a 397.5% lead, and single-core is 5462 versus 1098, a 397.4% lead. The consistency of these deltas, all hovering around 397% to 400%, indicates that the Xeon’s architecture scales linearly with core count in Cinebench’s rendering workload, and that the i5’s per-core performance is not enough to overcome the sheer core deficit.

Geekbench tells a different story. The multi-core test shows the Xeon at 14331 versus the i5’s 4066, a 252.5% lead, which is lower than the Cinebench margins. This suggests Geekbench’s multi-core test is less scalable, or that the i5’s Tiger Lake architecture is more efficient in certain integer and floating-point operations. The single-core Geekbench result is the closest benchmark in the entire comparison: the Xeon scores 1472 and the i5 scores 1463, a mere 0.6% difference. This is a notable result. It indicates that for a single-threaded workload that is not memory bandwidth bound, the i5’s newer 10nm process and higher boost clock of 4.40GHz can almost match the Xeon’s 4.30GHz boost, despite the Xeon having a much larger L3 cache. The i5’s larger per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes, 80 KB and 1.25 MB versus the Xeon’s 64 KB and 1 MB, likely contribute to this near parity.

The Xeon wins all eight head-to-head benchmarks, but the data shows that its dominance is not universal. The i5’s single-core Geekbench score proves that architectural efficiency can narrow the gap to nearly zero when core count is irrelevant.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X has 28 cores and 56 threads, while the Intel Core i5-1145G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon has a 7x core advantage and a 7x thread advantage.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 38692 against the i5’s 7777, a 397.5% lead. The Geekbench multi-core gap is smaller at 252.5%, with the Xeon scoring 14331 and the i5 scoring 4066.

Q: Is the i5-1145G7 competitive in single-threaded tasks?

A: Yes, in Geekbench single-core the i5 scores 1463, only 0.6% behind the Xeon’s 1472. However, in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon leads by 397.4% with a score of 5462 versus 1098.

Q: What are the memory support differences?

A: The Xeon supports six-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 128.0 GB/s and ECC memory. The i5 supports dual-channel DDR4 or LPDDR4X, has no recorded memory bandwidth, and does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-1145G7 has integrated graphics, specifically Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU. The Intel Xeon W-3175X has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU.

Q: What are the release dates and launch MSRPs?

A: The Xeon W-3175X was released on January 29, 2019, with a launch MSRP of $2999. The Core i5-1145G7 was released on September 1, 2020, with a launch MSRP of $309.

The Verdict

The data dictates a clear choice based on workload. For professional workstation tasks such as 3D rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, or any heavily multi-threaded application, the Intel Xeon W-3175X is the only option. Its Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 38692, which is 397.5% ahead of the i5, demonstrates unmatched parallel performance. The Xeon’s 28 cores, 56 threads, six-channel memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, and ECC support make it a server-grade workhorse. Users in this segment should accept the 255W TDP and the need for a dedicated GPU as necessary trade-offs for the performance.

For mobile users who need a processor for a laptop, the Intel Core i5-1145G7 is the only choice, despite losing every benchmark. Its 28W TDP, integrated Iris Xe Graphics, and support for LPDDR4X memory make it suitable for portable devices. The near-parity in Geekbench single-core, 1463 versus 1472, shows that for everyday tasks like web browsing and document editing, the i5 will feel just as responsive as the much larger Xeon. The i5’s lack of ECC memory and limited 4 PCIe Gen 4 lanes are irrelevant for its intended use case.

The average benchmark score comparison is misleading but worth noting. The i5 has an average benchmark score of 11279, which is higher than the Xeon’s 10369, because the i5’s PassMark tests are included in its average while the Xeon’s average is based on Cinebench and Geekbench only. The i5’s PassMark scores, such as 103172 in data compression and 32087 in integer math, are not comparable to the Xeon’s benchmarks. The percentile ranking of both processors is identical at 66, indicating that they both outperform the majority of CPUs in the database, but for entirely different reasons.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W-3175X | Intel Core i5-1145G7 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Cores | 28 | 4 |

| Threads | 56 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.10 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.30 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 255 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | Intel BGA 1449 |

| Architecture | Skylake | Tiger Lake |

| Codename | Skylake-W | Tiger Lake-U |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 688 mm² | 144 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 1 MB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 38.5 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, LPDDR4X |

| Memory Bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 48 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 4 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe Graphics G7 80EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Launch MSRP | $2999 | $309 |

| Release Date | 2019-01-29 | 2020-09-01 |