Intel Core i5-13490F vs Intel Xeon 6337P Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6337P and Intel Core i5-13490F are both 10 nm Raptor Lake parts on the same Intel Socket 1700, yet they are positioned for entirely different workloads. The benchmark data shows a stark split: the Core i5-13490F wins 15 of the 17 head-to-head tests, while the Xeon 6337P takes only two. This is not a close contest in overall throughput, but the two Xeon wins point to a specific niche where the server-oriented chip holds a genuine edge. The data reveals a processor that is almost universally slower except in one critical metric, raising the question of whether its specific strengths justify its existence alongside a cheaper, faster desktop part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-13490F is the clear winner in every multi-threaded and most single-threaded productivity workloads. Across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, it leads by a consistent margin of roughly 17.4% in both single-core and multi-core tests. Its advantage extends to PassMark's integer math, floating-point math, data compression, encryption, extended instructions, physics, multithread, and random string sorting. The i5-13490F also wins the 3DMark thread scaling tests, with scores of 7556 in 16-thread, 7550 in max-thread, 5731 in 8-thread, and 3552 in 4-thread. In short, the i5-13490F is the all-around performer for rendering, compilation, and general desktop use.

The Intel Xeon 6337P wins exactly two tests: PassMark single-thread and PassMark singlethread, both with identical scores of 4104 versus 3828. That 7.2% advantage is the Xeon's only victory, and it is a narrow one. This suggests the Xeon 6337P is tuned for lightly-threaded, latency-sensitive tasks where a single core's peak performance matters more than raw multi-core throughput. In the context of a server or workstation, this could translate to faster response times for database queries or legacy single-threaded applications, but the data does not show any other workload where the Xeon pulls ahead.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Raptor Lake architecture, 10 nm process node, and Intel foundry, but they differ in core configuration and physical design. The Xeon 6337P packs 6 cores and 12 threads, while the i5-13490F offers 10 cores and 16 threads. This core deficit is the primary reason for the Xeon's multi-threaded losses. The Xeon's die size is 163 mm², notably smaller than the i5's 215 mm², reflecting the fewer cores. Both have identical L1 cache at 80 KB per core and L2 at 1.25 MB per core, but the i5-13490F has a larger 24 MB shared L3 cache versus the Xeon's 18 MB.

The Xeon 6337P compensates with a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus the i5's 4.80 GHz, which explains its single-thread win. The Xeon also has a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz, though it draws more power at 80 W TDP compared to the i5's 65 W. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not, a critical feature for data integrity in server environments. Both support DDR4 and DDR5 memory with dual-channel buses and PCIe Gen 5 with 16 CPU lanes. The Xeon is marketed for Server/Workstation, while the i5 is a Desktop part, and the Xeon has no integrated graphics while the i5's iGPU status is listed as null.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern is the uniformity of the i5-13490F's multi-threaded victories. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, the deltaPct is consistently -17.4%, with the i5 scoring 2292 versus 1893 in R15 multicore, 9553 versus 7888 in R20, and 22747 versus 18783 in R23. The single-core Cinebench results show the same -17.4% delta, with the i5 leading 323 to 267 in R15, 1348 to 1113 in R20, and 3211 to 2651 in R23. This consistency suggests the i5's advantage scales linearly with its additional cores and threads.

The PassMark suite reveals larger deltas in specific workloads. Data compression shows the i5 ahead by 27.7% (328397 versus 237373), and data encryption shows a 29.6% lead (17902 versus 12604). Extended instructions are 26.3% faster on the i5 (20837 versus 15366), and random string sorting is 23.2% faster (34042 versus 26135). These are not marginal differences; they represent substantial performance gaps in real-world tasks like file compression and cryptographic operations. The smallest multi-threaded delta is in find prime numbers, where the i5 wins by only 5.3% (114 versus 108), suggesting that this particular workload is less sensitive to core count and more dependent on per-core efficiency.

The Xeon's single-thread win in PassMark is the outlier. With a score of 4104 versus 3828, the 7.2% delta is driven by its higher boost clock. This is the only test where the Xeon's clock speed advantage overcomes its architectural penalties. Interestingly, the Xeon loses the Cinebench single-core tests by the same 17.4% margin as multi-core, indicating that Cinebench's single-threaded portion is not as sensitive to boost clock as PassMark's. The data implies that the Xeon's 5.30 GHz boost is optimized for a specific instruction mix that PassMark captures but Cinebench does not.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i5-13490F has 10 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon 6337P has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Why does the Xeon 6337P win the PassMark single-thread test?

A: The Xeon has a higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz versus the i5's 4.80 GHz, and the PassMark single-thread test appears to favor this clock advantage, yielding a 7.2% lead (4104 versus 3828).

Q: What is the largest performance gap between the two?

A: The largest gap is in PassMark data encryption, where the i5-13490F leads by 29.6% (17902 versus 12604). Data compression follows closely at 27.7% (328397 versus 237373).

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon 6337P supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i5-13490F does not.

Q: Are these processors on the same socket and architecture?

A: Yes, both use Intel Socket 1700 and the Raptor Lake architecture, but the Xeon is part of the Raptor Lake Refresh generation while the i5 is the original Raptor Lake.

Q: How do the Cinebench R23 multi-core scores compare?

A: The i5-13490F scores 22747, which is 17.4% higher than the Xeon 6337P's 18783.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for users prioritizing multi-threaded performance: the Intel Core i5-13490F is the superior choice. It wins every Cinebench test and every PassMark workload except single-thread, with deltas ranging from 5.3% to 29.6%. For rendering, video encoding, data compression, or any heavily threaded application, the i5-13490F delivers decisively more throughput. Its larger L3 cache (24 MB versus 18 MB) and additional cores provide a structural advantage that the Xeon cannot overcome.

The Intel Xeon 6337P's only claim to relevance is its 7.2% lead in PassMark single-thread performance and its ECC memory support. For a server or workstation running latency-sensitive, single-threaded workloads where data integrity is paramount, the Xeon's ECC capability is a non-negotiable feature that the i5 lacks. However, the Xeon's average benchmark score of 28333 is nearly identical to the i5's 28185, placing both in the 80th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon's higher TDP (80 W versus 65 W) and higher launch MSRP of $375 versus the i5's $235 further cement the i5 as the value pick, though price is secondary to the performance data. The verdict is clear: choose the i5-13490F for general computing and heavy workloads, and choose the Xeon 6337P only if ECC memory support or its specific single-thread boost behavior is a hard requirement.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 6 (Xeon) vs 10 (i5)
• Threads: 12 (Xeon) vs 16 (i5)
• Base Clock: 3.50 GHz (Xeon) vs 2.50 GHz (i5)
• Boost Clock: 5.30 GHz (Xeon) vs 4.80 GHz (i5)
• TDP: 80 W (Xeon) vs 65 W (i5)
• Die Size: 163 mm² (Xeon) vs 215 mm² (i5)
• L3 Cache: 18 MB (Xeon) vs 24 MB (i5)
• ECC Memory: Yes (Xeon) vs No (i5)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) vs Desktop (i5)
• Release Date: 2025-02-23 (Xeon) vs 2023-02-09 (i5)
• Launch MSRP: $375 (Xeon) vs $235 (i5)
• Part Number: SRPLU (Xeon) vs SRMC0 (i5)
• Generation: Xeon 6 (Raptor Lake Refresh) vs Core i5 (Raptor Lake)