Intel Core i5-1250P vs Intel Xeon W-2140B Comparison

Intel Core i5-1250P vs Intel Xeon W-2140B: the benchmark data shows a consistent, though modest, victory for the mobile Alder Lake processor across every recorded Cinebench test, despite the Xeon’s higher base clock and workstation pedigree. The i5-1250P wins all six head-to-head comparisons with deltas between 6.2% and 6.3%, making it the clear performance leader in this matchup, while the Xeon W-2140B counters with platform advantages like quad-channel memory and ECC support that the mobile chip cannot match.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-1250P wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 1573 vs 1480 in R15, 6556 vs 6170 in R20, and 15610 vs 14692 in R23, with a consistent delta of 6.3% in R15 and R20, and 6.2% in R23.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The i5-1250P also leads in every single-core test. It scores 222 vs 209 in R15, 925 vs 871 in R20, and 2203 vs 2074 in R23, each with a delta of 6.2%.

Q: Why does the Xeon have a higher base clock but lose in benchmarks?

A: The Xeon W-2140B has a base clock of 3.20 GHz vs the i5-1250P’s 1.70 GHz, but the i5 boosts to 4.40 GHz vs 4.20 GHz. The data shows the i5’s higher boost clock and newer architecture translate into better actual test scores.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W-2140B supports ECC memory. The i5-1250P does not have ECC support in its specifications.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The Xeon W-2140B uses quad-channel memory with a recorded bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s, while the i5-1250P is dual-channel. The Xeon also exclusively supports DDR4, whereas the i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The i5-1250P has an average benchmark score of 4515, compared to the Xeon’s 4272. Both sit at the 58th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different design eras. The Intel Core i5-1250P is built on Alder Lake architecture using a 10 nm process node, while the Intel Xeon W-2140B uses the older Skylake architecture on a 14 nm node. This process advantage is visible in the die size: the i5-1250P measures 217 mm², less than half the Xeon’s 484 mm² die.

Core configurations differ significantly. The i5-1250P packs 12 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon W-2140B offers 8 cores and 16 threads. The i5’s extra four cores are paired with a larger L3 cache of 12 MB shared, versus the Xeon’s 11 MB shared. Per-core L1 and L2 caches also favor the i5: 80 KB L1 and 1.25 MB L2 per core, compared to 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core on the Xeon.

Memory architecture is a major divergence. The i5-1250P supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in a dual-channel configuration. The Xeon W-2140B supports only DDR4 but uses quad-channel memory, with a rated bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. The Xeon also includes ECC memory support, a feature absent from the i5. PCIe capabilities differ as well: the i5 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 48 lanes, a higher lane count but older standard.

Integrated graphics are exclusive to the i5-1250P, which features Iris Xe 80EU. The Xeon W-2140B has no integrated graphics. The market segments reflect this: the i5 is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1744 socket, while the Xeon is a server or workstation part on Intel Socket 2066. The Xeon’s TDP of 120 W is more than four times the i5’s 28 W, and the Xeon is marked as end-of-life while the i5 is still active in production.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows the i5-1250P winning every benchmark test in the head-to-head comparison, with no wins for the Xeon W-2140B. The margins are remarkably consistent across all six tests, hovering just above six percent.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-1250P scores 1573 against the Xeon’s 1480, a 6.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test follows the same pattern: 222 for the i5 vs 209 for the Xeon, a 6.2% delta. This consistency suggests the i5’s advantage is structural, not workload-specific.

Cinebench R20 shows similar results. Multi-core scores are 6556 for the i5 and 6170 for the Xeon, again a 6.3% delta. Single-core R20 has the i5 at 925 vs 871, a 6.2% lead. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.20 GHz cannot compensate for the i5’s superior boost clock of 4.40 GHz and newer architecture.

The most demanding test, Cinebench R23, reinforces the trend. Multi-core results are 15610 for the i5-1250P and 14692 for the Xeon, a 6.2% delta. Single-core results are 2203 vs 2074, also a 6.2% delta. Across all six tests, the i5-1250P maintains a lead between 6.2% and 6.3%, never wavering by more than a tenth of a percentage point.

The average benchmark scores in the database align with these results. The i5-1250P averages 4515 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Xeon W-2140B averages 4272. Both processors rank at the 58th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they sit in the same performance tier overall, but the i5 consistently edges ahead in the Cinebench suite.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet reveals stark contrasts. The i5-1250P has 12 cores and 16 threads, versus the Xeon’s 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks differ dramatically: 1.70 GHz for the i5 vs 3.20 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are closer, with the i5 at 4.40 GHz and the Xeon at 4.20 GHz.

Power and form factor differ by design intent. The i5-1250P has a TDP of 28 W and uses the Intel BGA 1744 socket, indicating a soldered mobile platform. The Xeon W-2140B has a TDP of 120 W and uses Intel Socket 2066, a desktop workstation platform. Production status also differs: the i5 is active, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

Memory support splits along platform lines. The i5 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a dual-channel bus. The Xeon supports only DDR4 but with a quad-channel bus and a specified bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s. ECC memory is available only on the Xeon. PCIe capabilities favor the Xeon in lane count at 48 lanes, but the i5 uses the newer Gen 4 standard versus the Xeon’s Gen 3.

Cache hierarchies differ in size. The i5 provides 80 KB L1 per core and 1.25 MB L2 per core, while the Xeon provides 64 KB L1 and 1 MB L2 per core. L3 cache is 12 MB shared on the i5 versus 11 MB shared on the Xeon. The i5 includes Iris Xe 80EU integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. Process node and die size also differ: 10 nm and 217 mm² for the i5, 14 nm and 484 mm² for the Xeon.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i5-1250P as the superior performer in CPU-bound benchmark tests. It wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons with deltas of 6.2% to 6.3%, and its average benchmark score of 4515 exceeds the Xeon’s 4272. For tasks measured by these tests, the i5 is the faster chip.

The Xeon W-2140B is not without merit, but its advantages are not reflected in the benchmark scores. It offers ECC memory support, quad-channel memory with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth, and 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, features that matter for specific workstation or server workloads. Its 8 cores and 16 threads match the i5 in thread count, but the i5’s 12 cores and higher boost clock deliver better Cinebench results.

Users who prioritize the recorded performance metrics should choose the i5-1250P. Users who need ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or a higher lane count for expansion should consider the Xeon despite its lower benchmark scores. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and much higher TDP of 120 W also factor into platform decisions, though the i5’s 28 W TDP indicates a fundamentally different power envelope.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-1250P wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. It takes multi-core Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 with deltas of 6.3%, 6.3%, and 6.2% respectively. It also wins single-core tests in R15, R20, and R23 with 6.2% deltas across the board. These wins translate to workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, and general compute that rely on raw CPU throughput.

The Xeon W-2140B wins in platform features, not in recorded benchmarks. It offers ECC memory support, which the i5 lacks, making it suitable for error-sensitive computing environments. Its quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth exceeds the i5’s dual-channel configuration, potentially benefiting memory-intensive tasks that are not captured in the Cinebench scores. Its 48 PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide more expansion capacity than the i5’s 20 Gen 4 lanes, though the i5 uses a newer standard.

The i5-1250P also wins on efficiency metrics from the specification data. Its 28 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon’s 120 W, and its 10 nm process node versus 14 nm indicates a newer manufacturing technology. The i5’s integrated Iris Xe 80EU graphics add functionality that the Xeon lacks entirely. For mobile or compact systems, the i5 is the clear choice based on the recorded data. For traditional workstation platforms requiring ECC and high memory bandwidth, the Xeon retains a role despite losing every benchmark comparison.