Intel Core i5-1250P vs Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data splits cleanly across every recorded test: the Intel Core i5-1250P wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, while the Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 records zero wins. That is a decisive sweep, but the context matters. The i5-1250P is a mobile processor with a 28 W TDP, while the Xeon E5-4669 v3 is a server and workstation part with a 135 W TDP and 18 cores. The i5-1250P wins by a consistent margin of roughly 5.4% in both single-core and multi-core workloads, which suggests an architectural advantage rather than a raw-core-count advantage.

In multi-core tests, the i5-1250P leads by 5.4% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. Its 12 cores and 16 threads outperform the Xeon's 18 cores and 36 threads in every multi-threaded render test. That is surprising on paper, since the Xeon has 50% more cores and 125% more threads. The i5-1250P compensates with a much higher boost clock of 4.40 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, plus a newer 10 nm process node compared to the Xeon's 22 nm node. The data indicates that the i5-1250P's per-core efficiency overcomes the Xeon's core-count advantage in these workloads.

In single-core tests, the i5-1250P leads by 5.7% in Cinebench R15 and by 5.4% in R20 and R23. The single-core gap is consistent across all three Cinebench versions, which indicates a stable frequency and IPC advantage. The i5-1250P's boost clock is 1.50 GHz higher than the Xeon's, and its Alder Lake architecture delivers higher instructions per clock than the older Haswell design. The Xeon's single-core scores still hold up reasonably well: 210 in R15, 878 in R20, and 2091 in R23, all within roughly 5% of the i5-1250P.

The Xeon E5-4669 v3 does not win any benchmark category in this comparison, but its positioning in the database tells a different story for other workloads. Its 45 MB shared L3 cache, quad-channel DDR4 memory bus with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and ECC memory support are features that matter in server environments. The recorded benchmarks only include Cinebench, so the Xeon's strengths in memory-intensive or ECC-required scenarios are not reflected in these six scores. The i5-1250P is the clear winner in this specific benchmark set, but the Xeon remains relevant for its platform features.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from entirely different design eras and market segments. The Intel Core i5-1250P uses the Alder Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, built for mobile devices with an Intel BGA 1744 socket. The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture on a 22 nm node, designed for servers and workstations with an Intel Socket 2011-3. The node difference is significant: the i5-1250P's 10 nm process allows for higher clock speeds and better power efficiency, while the Xeon's 22 nm process requires a 135 W TDP to drive 18 cores.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The i5-1250P has 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon E5-4669 v3 has 18 cores and 36 threads. The Xeon uses hyper-threading across all 18 cores, giving it more than double the thread count. The i5-1250P's 12 cores and 16 threads indicate that not all cores are hyper-threaded, which is typical for Alder Lake mobile parts with a mix of performance and efficiency cores.

Clock speeds favor the i5-1250P decisively. Its base clock is 1.70 GHz with a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. The Xeon runs at a base of 2.10 GHz and boosts to only 2.90 GHz. The Xeon's base clock is higher, but its boost ceiling is 1.50 GHz lower. In bursty single-threaded workloads, the i5-1250P has a massive frequency advantage.

Cache layouts are fundamentally different. The i5-1250P has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 45 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's L3 cache is nearly four times larger, which helps in server workloads with large working sets. The i5-1250P's larger per-core L1 and L2 caches support its higher single-thread performance.

Memory support diverges as well. The i5-1250P supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with no ECC support. The Xeon supports DDR4 only, but in a quad-channel configuration with 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC support. The Xeon's quad-channel memory bus is a server-grade feature that the mobile i5 cannot match.

PCIe capabilities differ by generation and lane count. The i5-1250P provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The i5 has faster per-lane bandwidth but fewer lanes. The i5 also includes integrated graphics: Iris Xe with 80 execution units. The Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, which is standard for server processors.

Release dates are seven years apart. The Xeon launched on 2015-05-31, while the i5-1250P launched on 2022-02-22. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the i5-1250P remains active in production. Die sizes reflect the process difference: the i5-1250P measures 217 mm², while the Xeon measures 662 mm². The Xeon's much larger die accommodates 18 Haswell cores and 45 MB of L3 cache on the older 22 nm node.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins all head-to-head benchmarks in this comparison?

A: The Intel Core i5-1250P wins all six Cinebench comparisons, with no wins recorded for the Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3.

Q: How much faster is the i5-1250P in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The i5-1250P scores 15610 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Xeon E5-4669 v3 scores 14815, a 5.4% advantage for the i5.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-4669 v3 have more cores and threads?

A: Yes, the Xeon has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the i5-1250P has 12 cores and 16 threads. Despite this, the i5 wins every multi-core benchmark.

Q: What memory features does the Xeon E5-4669 v3 offer that the i5-1250P does not?

A: The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC memory. The i5-1250P supports dual-channel DDR4 or DDR5 with no ECC capability.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-1250P includes Iris Xe graphics with 80 execution units. The Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two processors?

A: The i5-1250P boosts to 4.40 GHz, while the Xeon E5-4669 v3 boosts to 2.90 GHz, a difference of 1.50 GHz in favor of the i5.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-1250P | Intel Xeon E5-4669 v3 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 18 |

| Threads | 16 | 36 |

| Base clock | 1700.00 MHz | 2.10 GHz |

| Boost clock | 4.40 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 135 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1744 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Alder Lake | Haswell |

| Process node | 10 nm | 22 nm |

| Die size | 217 mm² | 662 mm² |

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

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

| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 45 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4, DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not specified | 68.3 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | Iris Xe 80EU | None |

| Market segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production status | Active | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2022-02-22 | 2015-05-31 |

| Part number | SRLD8 | SR22M QH9B |

The launch MSRP for the Xeon E5-4669 v3 is $7007.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a uniform pattern: the i5-1250P wins every Cinebench test by a narrow but consistent margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-1250P scores 1573 against the Xeon's 1493, a 5.4% advantage. The single-core R15 result is closer in percentage terms but still favors the i5: 222 versus 210, a 5.7% lead. This is the largest single-core delta in the entire comparison.

Cinebench R20 follows the same shape. The i5-1250P scores 6556 in multi-core versus 6222 for the Xeon, again a 5.4% advantage. In single-core R20, the i5 posts 925 against 878, a 5.4% lead. The consistency of the 5.4% delta across R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 multi-core suggests a stable performance relationship between the two processors that does not vary with workload intensity.

Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern. The i5-1250P delivers 15610 in multi-core versus 14815 for the Xeon, a 5.4% win. In single-core R23, the i5 scores 2203 against 2091, another 5.4% margin. The largest single-core margin is in R15 at 5.7%, and the smallest is 5.4%, so the entire benchmark set is tightly clustered.

The average benchmark scores in the database reflect a different overall picture. The i5-1250P has an average benchmark score of 4515, placing it at the 58th percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-12700TE at 4513 with a 0% delta, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V2748 at 4532 with a -0.4% delta, and the Intel Core i5-1340P at 4545 with a -0.7% delta. These rivals are all within 1% of the i5-1250P, indicating that the mobile processor sits in a tightly competitive cluster.

The Xeon E5-4669 v3 has an average benchmark score of 4285, also at the 58th percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 5750G at 4296 with a -0.3% delta, the Intel Xeon W-2140B at 4272 with a 0.3% delta, and the Intel Core i7-7820X at 4321 with a -0.8% delta. The Xeon's rivals are also within 1%, but its absolute average score is 230 points lower than the i5-1250P's.

The gap between the two processors in average benchmark score is about 5.4%, which matches the head-to-head deltas almost exactly. The i5-1250P's 12-core, 16-thread configuration with a 4.40 GHz boost clock outperforms the Xeon's 18-core, 36-thread configuration with a 2.90 GHz boost clock across every recorded Cinebench test. The Xeon's larger L3 cache, quad-channel memory, and ECC support do not translate into Cinebench wins, though those features serve different use cases.

The production status difference is worth noting: the i5-1250P is active, while the Xeon E5-4669 v3 is end-of-life. The Xeon's 135 W TDP and 22 nm process are from an earlier era, while the i5-1250P's 28 W TDP and 10 nm process represent a much more power-efficient design. In this benchmark set, the newer mobile processor wins every test by a narrow but consistent margin, with the Xeon trailing by roughly 5.4% across the board.