CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2186M and Intel Core i5-1335UE present a fascinating generational clash. On average, they are nearly inseparable, the Xeon averages 2912 points across benchmark suites, while the Core i5 averages 2907, a 0.2% gap. Yet the head-to-head results tell a completely different story: the newer Core i5-1335UE wins all six direct comparisons, with a consistent 5% margin in every single test. The Xeon E-2186M, despite its workstation pedigree and higher boost clock, cannot match the efficiency-oriented Core i5 in raw throughput. The data reveals that benchmark averages can mask a systematic performance edge.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i5-1335UE dominates the Xeon E-2186M across every Cinebench iteration. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core i5 scores 1013 against the Xeon’s 961, a 5.1% advantage. The single-core result follows the same pattern: 142 versus 135, a 4.9% lead. This consistency is remarkable, the deltaPct hovers between -4.9% and -5.1% across all six tests, suggesting a uniform architectural efficiency gain rather than a workload-specific advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Core i5-1335UE posts 4221 in multicore versus the Xeon’s 4007, again a 5.1% difference. Single-core R20 sees 595 against 565, a 5% gap. The R23 results reinforce the trend: 10052 against 9542 in multicore (5.1% delta) and 1419 versus 1347 in single-core (5.1% delta). No test shows the Xeon ahead; the Core i5 wins every round with a virtually identical margin.

What makes this interesting is the context of the rivals’ averages. The nearest rival to both is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600, which averages 2909 points, sitting between the two Intel parts. The Xeon E-2186M is 0.1% ahead of the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600, while the Core i5-1335UE is 0.1% behind it. In head-to-head terms, the Core i5’s 5% sweep is decisive, yet both processors sit at the 51st percentile among all CPUs. This suggests that while the Core i5 is uniformly faster in direct comparison, neither part is a standout in the broader CPU landscape.

The single-core results deserve scrutiny. The Core i5-1335UE’s 1419 in R23 single-core is notably higher than the Xeon’s 1347, yet the Xeon has a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz). This implies that the Core i5’s newer architecture extracts more instructions per clock, overcoming its clock deficit. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the margin is smaller (142 versus 135), but the direction is unchanged.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-1335UE wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, including every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore and single-core test. The Xeon E-2186M records zero wins in the direct comparison.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore workloads?

A: The Core i5-1335UE leads by 5.1% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. The scores are 1013 versus 961, 4221 versus 4007, and 10052 versus 9542 respectively.

Q: Do the two processors have similar average benchmark scores?

A: Yes. The Xeon E-2186M has an average benchmark score of 2912, while the Core i5-1335UE averages 2907. The deltaPct between them is 0.2%, making them statistically near-identical in overall performance.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Xeon E-2186M has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core i5-1335UE has 10 cores and 12 threads. Despite having 4 fewer cores, the Xeon matches the thread count.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon E-2186M has a boost clock of 4.80 GHz, which is higher than the Core i5-1335UE’s 4.50 GHz. The Core i5 still wins all single-core benchmarks despite this deficit.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: Both are within 0.5% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 1600 (2909 points) and the Intel Xeon E-2414 (2905 points). The Xeon E-2186M is 0.1% ahead of the Ryzen 5 PRO 1600, while the Core i5-1335UE is 0.1% behind it.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i5-1335UE wins in every benchmark category, making its case straightforward: it is the faster processor in both single-core and multi-threaded workloads. The 5% lead across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 is consistent, so the Core i5 is preferable for tasks that rely on CPU rendering, video encoding, or any compute-heavy application that scales across cores. Its 10-core configuration provides a physical core advantage over the Xeon’s 6 cores, even though both support 12 threads.

The Xeon E-2186M has no benchmark wins to claim. However, its value lies outside raw performance metrics. It supports ECC memory, which the Core i5 does not, making it the only choice for error-correcting memory configurations. The Xeon also has a higher boost clock (4.80 GHz versus 4.50 GHz) and a larger PCIe lane count (16 lanes versus 8 lanes), which could matter for expansion in a workstation context. The Xeon’s integrated graphics (UHD Graphics P630) differ from the Core i5’s Iris Xe Graphics 80EU, but neither is benchmarked here.

For users prioritizing maximum compute throughput, the Core i5-1335UE is the clear winner. For those needing ECC memory support or more PCIe lanes, the Xeon E-2186M retains a functional niche despite its performance deficit.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge significantly in their core configurations. The Xeon E-2186M offers 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core i5-1335UE offers 10 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ dramatically: the Xeon runs at 2.90 GHz, while the Core i5 has a base clock of 1300.00 MHz (1.30 GHz). Boost clocks are closer, with the Xeon at 4.80 GHz and the Core i5 at 4.50 GHz. The thermal design power (TDP) is another major divergence, the Xeon draws 45 watts, while the Core i5 draws only 15 watts.

Memory support differs: the Xeon supports DDR4 only, while the Core i5 supports both DDR4 and DDR5. Memory bandwidth figures are available only for the Xeon (42.7 GB/s); the Core i5’s bandwidth is not listed. ECC memory is supported by the Xeon but not by the Core i5. PCIe capabilities vary: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i5 provides Gen 4 with 8 lanes (CPU only). The sockets are incompatible, the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1440, and the Core i5 uses Intel BGA 1744.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the Xeon has UHD Graphics P630, while the Core i5 has Iris Xe Graphics 80EU. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $623; the Core i5 has no launch MSRP listed. The production statuses also differ, the Xeon is end-of-life, while the Core i5 is active.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E-2186M is built on Coffee Lake-H architecture, part of the Xeon E (Coffee Lake) generation, and manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process node. Its die size is 154 mm². The Core i5-1335UE uses Raptor Lake-U architecture from the Core i5 (Raptor Lake-U) generation and is manufactured on Intel’s 10 nm process node; no die size is listed. The release dates reflect this gap: the Xeon launched on 2018-04-03, while the Core i5 launched on 2023-01-03.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The Core i5 has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core. Both share 12 MB of L3 cache, but the Core i5’s larger per-core L2 cache is notable. The Xeon’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Core i5 is aimed at Mobile. The Core i5 uses a hybrid core architecture (implied by the 10-core count with 12 threads), whereas the Xeon uses a homogeneous 6-core design.

The process node difference (14 nm versus 10 nm) likely explains the Core i5’s superior performance-per-watt, as evidenced by its 15-watt TDP versus the Xeon’s 45 watts. The newer Raptor Lake architecture also brings a higher base clock frequency in terms of the listed 1300 MHz, though this likely reflects a base frequency for efficiency cores.

The Verdict

The Intel Core i5-1335UE is the superior processor for raw performance. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks with a consistent 5% margin, and it does so while consuming one-third the power (15 watts versus 45 watts). For anyone running Cinebench-style workloads, rendering, multi-threaded compute, or single-threaded tasks, the Core i5 is the data-backed choice. Its 10-core configuration and newer 10 nm architecture deliver a clear advantage over the Xeon’s 6-core Coffee Lake design.

The Xeon E-2186M appeals to a narrower audience. Its ECC memory support is a definitive feature that the Core i5 lacks, making it the only option for systems requiring error-correcting memory. Its higher boost clock (4.80 GHz) and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes also provide expansion headroom that the Core i5’s 8 Gen 4 lanes do not match in quantity. However, these advantages do not translate into any benchmark wins.

The data indicates that the Core i5-1335UE is the better all-around processor for performance-oriented users, especially those in mobile or low-power environments. The Xeon E-2186M is a workstation relic that retains niche value for ECC and PCIe needs, but its end-of-life status and 5% performance deficit make it difficult to recommend for new builds. The 51st percentile ranking for both parts confirms they are mid-pack performers overall, but within this pairing, the Core i5 is the clear winner.