Intel Core i5-6500TE vs Intel Xeon Bronze 3106 Comparison

The recorded data makes this matchup unusually one-sided: the Intel Xeon Bronze 3106 wins every benchmark in the database against the Intel Core i5-6500TE, by margins that cluster tightly around 15 to 16 percent. That consistency holds in both single-core and multi-core tests, which is the striking part, because the Xeon's advantage does not merely come from having twice the cores. The two chips land in the same overall percentile of the database, both sitting at the 37th percentile with nearly identical average scores, yet the Xeon is ahead in every direct comparison. This page breaks down why, and which buyer each part still suits.

The Verdict

Pick the Xeon Bronze 3106 if raw benchmark performance is the deciding factor, because it sweeps all six head-to-head tests: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both multi-core and single-core variants. The margins are 15 to 15.7 percent across the board, and the multi-core numbers (495 versus 428 in R15, 2065 versus 1787 in R20, 4918 versus 4255 in R23) reflect the Xeon's eight cores against the Core i5's four.

Pick the Core i5-6500TE if power efficiency, platform flexibility, or integrated graphics matter more than peak throughput. The i5-6500TE carries a 35 W TDP versus the Xeon's 85 W, includes HD Graphics 530 where the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, and sits on the mainstream Socket 1151 rather than the server-oriented Socket 3647. Its dual-channel memory bus with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth is fully specified in the database, and it supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory. Note that the database marks it as end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of $192.

The verdict on numbers alone is clear: the Xeon wins 6 to 0 in head-to-head benchmarks. But the i5-6500TE is a desktop-class, low-power part, and its 37th percentile placement and average score of 1399 sit within a hair of the Xeon's 1422, so in the broader database population the two occupy essentially the same performance tier.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are Intel Skylake designs on a 14 nm process from Intel's own foundry, released within roughly two years of each other (the i5-6500TE in October 2015, the Xeon Bronze 3106 in July 2017). The differences are in how each implementation is tuned.

The Xeon Bronze 3106 is a Skylake-SP server die built for Socket 3647. It has 8 cores and 8 threads, a 2.10 GHz base clock with a 3.00 GHz boost, and a generous cache hierarchy: 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 11 MB of shared L3. It packs 8,000 million transistors, supports DDR4, and includes ECC memory support, which is expected for a Server/Workstation part. There is no integrated graphics and no PCIe lane count is recorded.

The Core i5-6500TE is a Skylake desktop die for Socket 1151, with 4 cores and 4 threads. It runs a slightly higher 2.30 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost, but its cache is much smaller: the same 64 KB of L1 per core, but only 256 KB of L2 per core and 6 MB of shared L3. Its die size is recorded at 122 mm². Memory support spans DDR3 and DDR4 across a dual-channel bus delivering 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth, but ECC is not supported. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and integrated HD Graphics 530 is present. Neither part has an unlocked multiplier.

The architectural story is straightforward: the Xeon trades clock speed for cores and cache, the i5-6500TE does the opposite, and the benchmark data shows the Xeon's approach winning even in tests that only use one thread.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Every recorded head-to-head test goes to the Xeon Bronze 3106, and the delta percentages are remarkably uniform.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 495 against the i5's 428, a 15.7 percent win. R15 single-core reads 69 versus 60, a 15 percent gap. Cinebench R20 multi-core lands at 2065 versus 1787 for a 15.6 percent Xeon lead, and R20 single-core at 291 versus 252 for 15.5 percent. Cinebench R23 multi-core is 4918 versus 4255 (15.6 percent), and R23 single-core is 694 versus 600 (15.7 percent).

Two observations stand out. First, the multi-core margins of roughly 15.6 percent are modest given the Xeon has exactly twice the cores and twice the threads. The i5's higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz explains part of that compression, since its four threads run faster than the Xeon's threads when boosted to 3.00 GHz. Second, and more telling, the single-core margins match the multi-core margins almost exactly. A benchmark-database shopper might expect the i5's frequency advantage to flip the single-thread results, but it does not: the Xeon's much larger cache (1 MB of L2 per core and 11 MB of L3, versus 256 KB and 6 MB) and server-class Skylake-SP implementation carry it to the same roughly 15 percent lead in every single-thread test.

The i5-6500TE also has Geekbench results recorded that the Xeon does not: 2749 multi-core and 1062 single-core. Those scores have no direct counterpart for the Xeon in the database, so they cannot be compared head-to-head, but they reinforce the i5's mid-tier placement, matching its average benchmark score of 1399.

Against their respective nearest rivals, the two chips are near-identical in standing. The Xeon's average of 1422 sits within 0.1 percent of the Intel Core i7-3720QM (1421) and the Intel Core i7-3820 (1424), and within 0.2 percent of the AMD Opteron 4274 HE and the Intel Core i7-2700K. The i5's 1399 is within 0.1 percent of the Xeon E3-1220 v5, within 0.2 percent of the Xeon E3-1240L v3, and within 0.4 percent of the Xeon E-2104G and Pentium Gold G7400TE. In other words, both chips are statistically peers of older quad-core flagships and entry Xeons, and the Xeon's slightly higher average reflects its clean sweep in shared tests.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall? A: The Xeon Bronze 3106. It won all 6 head-to-head benchmarks against the i5-6500TE, with margins between 15 and 15.7 percent.

Q: Does the Core i5-6500TE win anything? A: Not in the recorded benchmark data. Its advantages are non-benchmark attributes: a 35 W TDP versus 85 W, integrated HD Graphics 530, DDR3 and DDR4 support, and the Socket 1151 platform.

Q: Why does the Xeon win single-core tests despite a lower boost clock? A: The Xeon boosts to 3.00 GHz versus the i5's 3.30 GHz, but its per-core L2 is four times larger (1 MB versus 256 KB) and its shared L3 is nearly double (11 MB versus 6 MB). The results show it ahead by 15 to 15.7 percent in every single-thread test.

Q: Do these two CPUs rank similarly in the database? A: Yes. Both sit at the 37th percentile versus all CPUs, with average scores of 1422 (Xeon) and 1399 (i5), a gap of well under 2 percent.

Q: Which supports ECC memory? A: Only the Xeon Bronze 3106. The i5-6500TE does not support ECC, consistent with its desktop market segment.

Q: Are either of these CPUs still in production? A: The database lists the i5-6500TE as end-of-life, with a launch MSRP of $192. No production status is recorded for the Xeon Bronze 3106.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon Bronze 3106 wins every performance workload in the database: rendering-style multi-core loads (15.7, 15.6, and 15.6 percent in R15, R20, and R23 multi-core) and responsiveness-sensitive single-core loads (15, 15.5, and 15.7 percent). Add ECC support and eight physical cores, and it is the pick for compute tasks, workstations, and error-checked server duty.

The Core i5-6500TE wins on everything surrounding the compute: efficiency, with a 35 W TDP against the Xeon's 85 W; integration, with HD Graphics 530 available where the Xeon requires discrete graphics; and platform breadth, with dual-channel memory at 34.1 GB/s, support for both DDR3 and DDR4, and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. For compact desktop systems where power and graphics integration matter more than peak benchmark scores, the recorded data still places it in the same 37th percentile tier as the Xeon.

Specification Differences

• Cores/Threads: Xeon 8/8 versus i5 4/4
• Base Clock: 2.10 GHz (Xeon) versus 2.30 GHz (i5)
• Boost Clock: 3.00 GHz (Xeon) versus 3.30 GHz (i5)
• TDP: 85 W (Xeon) versus 35 W (i5)
• Socket: Socket 3647 (Xeon) versus Socket 1151 (i5)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (Xeon) versus 256 KB per core (i5)
• L3 Cache: 11 MB shared (Xeon) versus 6 MB shared (i5)
• Memory Support: DDR4 only (Xeon) versus DDR3 and DDR4 (i5)
• ECC: Supported (Xeon) versus not supported (i5)
• Integrated Graphics: None (Xeon) versus HD Graphics 530 (i5)
• Transistors: 8,000 million recorded for the Xeon; no figure recorded for the i5
• Die Size: 122 mm² recorded for the i5; no figure recorded for the Xeon
• PCIe: Not recorded for the Xeon; Gen 3, 16 CPU lanes for the i5
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) versus Desktop (i5)
• Release Date: July 2017 (Xeon) versus October 2015 (i5)
• Average Benchmark Score: 1422 (Xeon) versus 1399 (i5), both at the 37th percentile