Intel Core i5-1155G7 vs Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 and Intel Core i5-1155G7 represent two very different eras of Intel silicon, yet they land in the same performance percentile. Both CPUs sit at the 49th percentile among all processors tested, and their average benchmark scores are close: 2545 for the Xeon versus 2496 for the Core i5. However, the data shows a clear and consistent winner across every common benchmark. The Xeon E5-1650 v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with a dominant pattern of 7.9% advantages in most tests. The Core i5-1155G7, despite being a much newer design with a higher boost clock, never manages to take a single victory. This is a case where architectural age and core count outweigh generational improvements in the specific workloads measured.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1650 v3 establishes its lead early in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, scoring 887 against the Core i5-1155G7's 822. That is a 7.9% margin, and the same exact delta appears in the Cinebench R20 multi-core run: 3696 versus 3425. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core as well, where the Xeon scores 8800 and the Core i5 scores 8155, again a 7.9% advantage. These results are not marginal; they are consistent and repeatable across three successive versions of the same rendering workload.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, though the margins are slightly different. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 125 versus the Core i5's 115, which is an 8.7% lead. The R20 single-core test shows 521 against 483, a 7.9% gap. The R23 single-core test follows with 1242 versus 1151, once more a 7.9% difference. The Core i5-1155G7 has a significantly higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz compared to the Xeon's 3.80 GHz, yet the older Haswell design still outpaces it in every single-core test. This indicates that the Xeon's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz and its architectural efficiency in these specific benchmarks are more decisive than the raw clock speed advantage of the Tiger Lake part.

The data is unambiguous: the Xeon E5-1650 v3 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks. There are no tests where the Core i5-1155G7 comes out ahead. The closest margin is the 7.9% in multi-core, and the widest is the 8.7% in R15 single-core. For any user looking at Cinebench scores as a proxy for rendering or general CPU throughput, the Xeon is the stronger choice in every category. The Core i5 does have additional Geekbench scores in its benchmark list—4246 multi-core and 1574 single-core—but the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench data in the fact pack, so those cannot be compared head-to-head.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1650 v3 wins in every benchmark category where both processors have data. That includes all three Cinebench versions, in both multi-core and single-core modes. Its six-core, twelve-thread configuration gives it a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, and the data shows that advantage translates directly into higher scores. The 7.9% multi-core lead across R15, R20, and R23 is consistent, suggesting that the Xeon's additional two cores and four threads are being fully utilized in these rendering tests. Single-core performance is also in the Xeon's favor, with margins between 7.9% and 8.7%, which is notable given the Core i5's much higher boost clock.

The Core i5-1155G7, on the other hand, has no benchmark wins in the head-to-head data. Its strengths lie elsewhere in the fact pack, specifically in its integrated graphics. The Core i5 includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 80EU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. This means the Core i5 can handle display output and basic graphics tasks without a discrete GPU, which is a functional advantage for a mobile system. The Core i5 also has a much lower TDP of 28 watts compared to the Xeon's 140 watts, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical. However, in terms of raw CPU benchmark scores, the Core i5 does not win any of the six comparisons.

For use-case analysis, the Xeon is the pick for server or workstation workloads where multi-threaded rendering is the priority, as evidenced by its consistent Cinebench victories. The Core i5 is the pick for a mobile platform where integrated graphics and low power draw are essential, even if it loses every CPU benchmark. The data does not show a scenario where the Core i5 beats the Xeon in processing power; its advantages are entirely in platform features and efficiency, not in the measured Cinebench scores.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is stark. The Xeon E5-1650 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process node. It has 6 cores and 12 threads, with a base clock of 3.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. Its cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 15 MB L3 cache. The die size is 356 mm², and the processor contains 2,600 million transistors. It supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, yielding a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 and offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. Its market segment is server or workstation, and it is end-of-life, released in September 2014.

The Core i5-1155G7 uses the Tiger Lake architecture, specifically Tiger Lake-U, built on a 10 nm process node. It has 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. Its cache layout differs significantly: 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The die size is much smaller at 144 mm², and no transistor count is listed. It supports both DDR4 and LPDDR4X memory over a dual-channel bus, with no memory bandwidth figure provided. It does not support ECC memory. It uses the Intel BGA 1449 socket and offers 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes from the CPU. It includes integrated Iris Xe-LP graphics with 80 execution units, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Core i5 is an active mobile product, released in May 2021, with a launch MSRP of $309.

The most significant differences are the process node (22 nm versus 10 nm), the core counts (6 versus 4), the memory bus (quad-channel versus dual-channel), and the presence of integrated graphics. The Xeon's larger 15 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory bandwidth are designed for server throughput, while the Core i5's smaller 8 MB L3 and dual-channel memory are typical for mobile efficiency. The Core i5's boost clock is 0.70 GHz higher, but that does not translate into benchmark wins. The Xeon also has an unlocked multiplier, whereas the Core i5 is locked.

The Verdict

The data is decisive: the Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 is the faster processor in every benchmark where both are measured. It leads by 7.9% in multi-core and single-core tests across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, and by 8.7% in R15 single-core. If the priority is raw CPU performance for rendering or similar workloads, the Xeon is the clear choice. Its six cores and twelve threads, combined with a 15 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory, deliver consistently higher scores than the Core i5's four cores and eight threads.

The Intel Core i5-1155G7 is the better choice only if the platform matters more than the benchmark scores. Its integrated Iris Xe graphics mean no discrete GPU is needed, and its 28-watt TDP makes it viable for a mobile device. It is an active product with a modern 10 nm process, while the Xeon is end-of-life on a 22 nm process. But in terms of the Cinebench data, the Core i5 loses every single test. There is no benchmark in the fact pack where the Core i5 outperforms the Xeon.

Who should pick which? A workstation user running multi-threaded render jobs should pick the Xeon E5-1650 v3, as it wins all six head-to-head tests. A laptop buyer who needs integrated graphics and long battery life should pick the Core i5-1155G7, accepting that it will be slower in CPU-bound benchmarks. The Xeon's unlocked multiplier and ECC support further reinforce its server/workstation positioning, while the Core i5's active status and mobile socket define its role. Strictly from the data, the Xeon is the performance winner; the Core i5 wins on platform suitability.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, including all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 tests, in both multi-core and single-core modes.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E5-1650 v3 scores 8800, while the Core i5-1155G7 scores 8155, giving the Xeon a 7.9% lead.

Q: Does the Core i5-1155G7 have any advantage in single-core tests?

A: No. The Xeon wins all three single-core tests, with margins of 8.7% in R15, 7.9% in R20, and 7.9% in R23.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1650 v3 has a TDP of 140 watts, while the Core i5-1155G7 has a TDP of 28 watts.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i5-1155G7 has integrated graphics, specifically Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 80EU. The Xeon E5-1650 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-1650 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-1155G7 does not.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1650 v3 | Intel Core i5-1155G7 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 4 |

| Threads | 12 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 3.50 GHz | 2.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.80 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 140 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel BGA 1449 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Tiger Lake |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 144 mm² |

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

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 15 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, LPDDR4X |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes | Gen 4, 16 Lanes |

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

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2014-09-07 | 2021-05-30 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $309 |

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |