Intel Core i5-4590 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark split between the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M and the Intel Core i5-4590 is not a contest, it is a category difference. Across the six recorded Cinebench tests, the Xeon Platinum 8180M wins every single one. The data shows zero wins for the Core i5-4590. This is not a close matchup; it is a demonstration of two processors built for entirely different purposes.

The Xeon Platinum 8180M dominates in every multi-core workload. Its 28 cores and 56 threads give it a massive advantage in rendering, encoding, and any task that can scale across many threads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 28040 versus 4573 represents a 513.2% advantage. In practical terms, this means a workstation running the Xeon will finish a full-CPU render many times faster than a desktop running the i5-4590.

The single-core results are equally lopsided, though the margin is slightly different. The Xeon scores 3958 in Cinebench R23 single-core against the i5's 645, a 513.6% lead. This is notable because the i5-4590 has a higher base clock (3.30 GHz vs 2.50 GHz) and a nearly identical boost clock (3.70 GHz vs 3.80 GHz). Yet the newer Skylake architecture and larger cache on the Xeon still produce a decisive single-thread win.

The Core i5-4590 does have additional benchmark entries in the database beyond the head-to-head Cinebench tests. Its Geekbench multi-core score is 3156 and single-core is 1077. PassMark results include a data compression score of 76800, integer math at 15862, and floating point math at 12057. However, these scores do not change the overall picture: all recorded head-to-head wins belong to the Xeon Platinum 8180M.

The use-case split is clear. The Xeon Platinum 8180M is a server and workstation part, designed for sustained heavy workloads across many cores. The Core i5-4590 is a desktop part from 2014, adequate for everyday tasks and light productivity, but not in the same league for compute-heavy professional work.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Xeon Platinum 8180M uses the Skylake-SP architecture on a 14 nm process node, while the Core i5-4590 uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm node. The Xeon packs 8,000 million transistors, the i5 has 1,400 million. The die size for the i5 is recorded as 177 mm², while the Xeon's die size is not listed in the database.

Core counts are the most obvious split. The Xeon has 28 cores and 56 threads. The i5 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no Hyper-Threading support. This is a 7x difference in core count and a 14x difference in thread count. The Xeon's base clock is 2.50 GHz with a boost of 3.80 GHz. The i5's base clock is 3.30 GHz with a boost of 3.70 GHz. The i5 starts at a higher frequency, but the Xeon can boost slightly higher, and it has far more cores to work with.

Cache hierarchies are also very different. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 38.5 MB L3 cache. The i5 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 6 MB L3 cache. The Xeon's L3 cache is more than 6 times larger, which helps with data-heavy server workloads.

Memory support differs completely. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory with ECC enabled, which is a requirement for reliable server operation. The i5 supports DDR3 memory, has a dual-channel memory bus, and does not support ECC. The i5 also has integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 3647 platform, while the i5 uses Socket 1150. The Xeon's TDP is 205 watts, the i5's is 84 watts.

The release dates are also far apart. The Xeon launched on 2017-07-10, while the i5 launched on 2014-04-30. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either. The market segments are explicit: the Xeon is for Server/Workstation, the i5 is for Desktop.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six head-to-head Cinebench results, and the Xeon Platinum 8180M wins all six. The margins are consistent across every test, hovering around 513% to 522%. This consistency suggests the performance gap is structural, not workload-specific.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2826 against the i5's 460, a 514.3% delta. The single-core R15 result is 398 against 64, a 521.9% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 11776 versus 1920 (513.3% delta), and single-core is 1662 versus 270 (515.6% delta). In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score is 28040 versus 4573 (513.2% delta), and single-core is 3958 versus 645 (513.6% delta).

The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core at 521.9%. The smallest is in R23 multi-core at 513.2%. The gap between these is only about 8.7 percentage points, indicating that the Xeon's advantage is nearly uniform across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. This is unusual. Typically, a high-core-count server chip will win multi-core tests by a huge margin but may lose or tie in single-core tests. Here, the Xeon wins both by similar proportions, which points to a significant IPC advantage from the newer Skylake architecture combined with a slightly higher boost clock.

The i5's single-core deficit is especially telling. With a base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost of 3.70 GHz, the i5 should be competitive on a per-clock basis. Yet it scores 645 in R23 single-core against the Xeon's 3958. A 513.6% lead with only a 0.10 GHz boost clock advantage for the Xeon is a massive architectural gap. The Haswell core, despite its age, is not remotely competitive against Skylake-SP at the same frequency.

For context, the Xeon's average benchmark score is 8110, putting it at the 64th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-8100 (avg score 8123, delta -0.2%), the AMD EPYC 7302 (8139, -0.4%), and the Intel Xeon Gold 5318Y (8147, -0.5%). The i5-4590 has an average score of 7609, placing it at the 63rd percentile. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 2990WX (7578, +0.4%) and the Intel Core i5-6500 (7569, +0.5%). Despite the different percentile rankings, the Xeon's average score is roughly 6.6% higher than the i5's average, which aligns with the head-to-head results showing a dominant Xeon advantage.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M is in a completely different performance class than the Intel Core i5-4590. In every recorded benchmark, the Xeon leads by more than 500%. This is not a case where one chip is slightly better at some tasks and the other at others. The Xeon wins all six head-to-head tests, and the i5 wins none.

Who should pick the Xeon Platinum 8180M? Anyone running server or workstation workloads that demand high core counts, large caches, and ECC memory. The 28 cores and 56 threads are built for virtualization, database serving, scientific computing, and heavy rendering. The 38.5 MB L3 cache and DDR4 with ECC support are server essentials. The 205 watt TDP is a trade-off, but it is acceptable for a machine designed to run at full load for extended periods.

Who should pick the Core i5-4590? The data suggests this is a desktop processor for its time. It has integrated graphics, a lower 84 watt TDP, and DDR3 memory support. For basic desktop tasks, office work, and light media consumption, it is sufficient. However, the benchmark results show it is not competitive for any modern multi-threaded workload. The single-core scores are also far behind, meaning even everyday tasks that rely on one core will feel slower compared to the Xeon.

The percentile data is interesting. The Xeon sits at the 64th percentile of all CPUs, while the i5 sits at the 63rd. These are nearly identical percentile ranks, yet the head-to-head margin is enormous. This is because the percentile includes all CPUs in the database, many of which are mid-range parts. The average benchmark scores differ by only about 500 points (8110 vs 7609), but this average masks the extreme deltas in the Cinebench tests. The Xeon's strength is concentrated in multi-core scaling, which is exactly what its design targets.

In short: the Xeon Platinum 8180M is the clear choice for professional, multi-threaded workloads. The Core i5-4590 is a legacy desktop part that has no benchmark advantage anywhere in the recorded data.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8180M wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. In R23 multi-core, it scores 28040 against the i5-4590's 4573, a 513.2% lead.

Q: Does the Core i5-4590 win in single-core performance?

A: No. The Xeon Platinum 8180M also wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 3958 versus the i5's 645, a 513.6% advantage.

Q: What is the difference in core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8180M has 28 cores and 56 threads. The Core i5-4590 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Do the processors support the same memory type?

A: No. The Xeon Platinum 8180M supports DDR4 memory with ECC. The Core i5-4590 supports DDR3 memory and does not support ECC.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8180M has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz. The Core i5-4590 has a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The Xeon is slightly higher.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Core i5-4590 wins?

A: In the recorded head-to-head benchmark data, the Core i5-4590 has zero wins. The Xeon Platinum 8180M wins all six Cinebench tests.