Intel Core i5-11600T vs Intel Xeon Silver 4116 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-11600T and Intel Xeon Silver 4116 occupy different ends of Intel’s product spectrum, yet benchmark results place them within 0.2% of each other in average score. The Core i5-11600T averages 3742, while the Xeon Silver 4116 averages 3733. Despite this near-parity, the two processors are built for fundamentally different workloads, with the desktop part emphasizing single-thread responsiveness and the server part offering double the cores and threads. The data shows a clean sweep for the Xeon in every Cinebench test, though the margins are consistently narrow at 3.8% or 4.1%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Silver 4116 has 12 cores and 24 threads, exactly double the 6 cores and 12 threads of the Intel Core i5-11600T.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i5-11600T has an average benchmark score of 3742, while the Xeon Silver 4116 scores 3733. The delta is just 0.2%, with the Core i5 leading by that margin.

Q: Does the Xeon Silver 4116 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon Silver 4116 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-11600T does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the boost clock difference?

A: The Core i5-11600T boosts to 4.10 GHz, which is 1.10 GHz higher than the Xeon Silver 4116’s 3.00 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Xeon Silver 4116 has an 85 W TDP, while the Core i5-11600T has a 35 W TDP. The Core i5 uses less than half the power envelope.

Q: In the head-to-head benchmarks, how many tests does each win?

A: The Xeon Silver 4116 wins all 6 head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Core i5-11600T wins none.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two Intel processors is stark, reflecting their different market segments. The Core i5-11600T is built on Rocket Lake, a 14 nm desktop architecture from the Core 11th Gen series, while the Xeon Silver 4116 uses the Skylake-SP architecture on the same 14 nm process node. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the die sizes differ: the Core i5 has a 276 mm² die, whereas the Xeon’s die size is not listed.

Core and cache configurations diverge significantly. The Core i5-11600T packs 6 cores and 12 threads with an 80 KB L1 cache per core, 512 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. The Xeon Silver 4116 doubles the core count to 12 cores and 24 threads, but has a smaller 64 KB L1 per core, a larger 1 MB L2 per core, and 16.5 MB shared L3. The Xeon also lists 8,000 million transistors, a figure absent for the Core i5.

Memory support and platform features further separate them. The Core i5-11600T supports dual-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, and features PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon Silver 4116 supports DDR4 but lists no memory bus width or bandwidth figures, and no PCIe information. The Core i5 includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Core i5 uses an Intel Socket 1200, while the Xeon requires Intel Socket 3647. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but nuanced choice. For multi-threaded server or workstation workloads, the Xeon Silver 4116 is the definitive pick. It wins every Cinebench test in the head-to-head comparison, from the R15 multicore score of 1301 against 1248 to the R23 multicore score of 12908 against 12385. Its 12 cores and 24 threads, combined with ECC memory support, make it the appropriate selection for environments where data integrity and parallel throughput are paramount.

For desktop users prioritizing power efficiency and single-thread performance, the Core i5-11600T holds appeal. Its 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon’s 85 W, and its 4.10 GHz boost clock is substantially higher than the Xeon’s 3.00 GHz. While the Core i5 loses the single-core Cinebench tests, the margins are slim: the Xeon leads by only 3.8% in R15 single-core (183 vs 176) and 4.1% in R23 single-core (1822 vs 1748). The Core i5’s average benchmark score of 3742 is actually 0.2% higher than the Xeon’s 3733, indicating that its strengths in other areas offset the Cinebench deficits.

The specifications decide the use case. The Core i5-11600T is a desktop part with integrated graphics, PCIe Gen 4, and a 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, suited for compact or low-power builds. The Xeon Silver 4116 is a server/workstation processor with ECC support and a much higher core count, designed for sustained multi-threaded processing. Neither processor is unlocked for overclocking, as both have multiplierUnlocked set to false. The Xeon’s release date of 2017-07-10 predates the Core i5’s 2021-03-15 release by several years, but the benchmark data shows the older Xeon still holds a performance edge in Cinebench.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-11600T | Intel Xeon Silver 4116 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 12 |

| Threads | 12 | 24 |

| Base Clock | 1700.00 MHz | 2100.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.10 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 85 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1200 | Intel Socket 3647 |

| Architecture | Rocket Lake | Skylake |

| Codename | Rocket Lake | Skylake-SP |

| Generation | Core i5 (Rocket Lake-S) | Xeon Silver (Skylake-SP) |

| Transistors | Not listed | 8,000 million |

| Die Size | 276 mm² | Not listed |

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

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 1 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 16.5 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Not listed |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 750 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2021-03-15 | 2017-07-10 |

| Launch MSRP | $213 | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform: the Xeon Silver 4116 wins all six Cinebench tests, with the same 4.1% delta in five of them. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 1301 against the Core i5’s 1248, a 4.1% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows the Xeon ahead by 3.8%, scoring 183 versus 176. This single-core margin is the smallest of the entire comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Xeon’s multicore score of 5421 beats the Core i5’s 5201 by 4.1%. In single-core R20, the Xeon scores 765 versus 734, again a 4.1% lead. The Core i5’s single-core deficit remains consistent, suggesting the Xeon’s higher 2.10 GHz base clock provides a steady advantage even in lightly threaded workloads, despite the Core i5’s superior 4.10 GHz boost clock.

Cinebench R23 reinforces the trend. The Xeon scores 12908 in multicore, against the Core i5’s 12385, a 4.1% difference. In single-core R23, the Xeon leads 1822 to 1748, another 4.1% margin. Across all tests, the Xeon’s advantage never exceeds 4.1%, which is notable given that it has twice the cores and threads. The Core i5’s higher boost clock and newer architecture appear to mitigate the core deficit in these specific benchmarks.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Core i5-11600T averages 3742, placing it 0.2% above the Xeon’s 3733. Both processors sit at the 56th percentile among all CPUs, and their nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650GE, which scores 3732 and trails the Core i5 by 0.3% and the Xeon by 0%. The Intel Core i5-11260H also appears as a near rival, scoring 3721, which is 0.6% behind the Core i5 and 0.3% behind the Xeon. The Core i5-1245U scores 3775, which is 0.9% ahead of the Core i5-11600T.

In the end, the benchmark data shows the Xeon Silver 4116 as the consistent winner in Cinebench, while the Core i5-11600T edges out the Xeon in overall average score. The Xeon’s 6-0 sweep in head-to-head tests is tempered by the narrow margins, and the Core i5’s lower TDP and higher boost clock make it a compelling alternative for power-conscious users.