Intel Core i5-8250U vs Intel Xeon D-2799 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon D-2799 has 20 cores and 40 threads, while the Intel Core i5-8250U has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Xeon D-2799 scores 4055 in Cinebench R23 single-core, while the i5-8250U scores 694. The Xeon leads by 82.9% in this test.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon D-2799 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-8250U does not.

Q: What is the difference in process node?

A: The Xeon D-2799 is built on Intel's 10 nm process, while the Core i5-8250U uses the older 14 nm node.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i5-8250U includes Intel UHD 620 integrated graphics. The Xeon D-2799 has no integrated graphics listed in the database.

Q: What are the market segments for each chip?

A: The Core i5-8250U is a mobile processor, while the Xeon D-2799 targets the server/workstation segment.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel families and eras. The Core i5-8250U uses the Kaby Lake architecture, specifically the Kaby Lake-R refresh, and belongs to the Kaby Lake-U generation. It is built on Intel's 14 nm process with a die size of 123 mm². The Xeon D-2799 uses the Ice Lake architecture, specifically Ice Lake-D, and is built on Intel's 10 nm process. The database does not list a die size for the Xeon.

Core layout differs substantially. The Core i5-8250U has 4 cores and 8 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon D-2799 has 20 cores and 40 threads, with 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and a much larger 30 MB of shared L3 cache. The per-core cache hierarchy is more generous on the Xeon, particularly at the L2 level, which is nearly five times larger per core.

Memory architecture also splits the pair. Both support DDR4 memory, but the Xeon D-2799 features a quad-channel memory bus with a recorded memory bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s. The i5-8250U does not have a memory bus or bandwidth entry in the database. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server workloads, while the i5 does not. PCIe connectivity is only listed for the Xeon: Gen 4 with 32 lanes (CPU only). The i5-8250U has no PCIe information recorded.

The sockets differ as well: the i5-8250U uses Intel BGA 1356, while the Xeon D-2799 uses Intel BGA 2579. The Xeon is a server-class part with a 129 W TDP, far above the 15 W TDP of the mobile i5. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $1972. The i5-8250U has no launch MSRP recorded. The Xeon was released on 2022-02-23, while the i5-8250U arrived on 2017-08-20. Both parts remain in active production, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SR3LA for the i5 and SRLCTSRM2C for the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data leaves little ambiguity about the overall winner. The Xeon D-2799 wins every head-to-head benchmark in the database, taking all 6 recorded tests. The Core i5-8250U records zero wins across those same tests. This is a decisive sweep in raw performance.

However, the i5-8250U is not without its own domain. As a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP, it is designed for battery-constrained laptops and ultrabooks. Its integrated UHD 620 graphics mean it can drive displays without a discrete GPU, which is essential for portable systems. The Xeon D-2799 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate GPU for any display output. The i5 also fits in the Intel BGA 1356 socket, a mobile platform, whereas the Xeon uses the BGA 2579 socket aimed at server boards.

For workloads that fit within the i5's 4-core, 8-thread design, such as light productivity or media consumption on a laptop, the i5 is the appropriate choice. The Xeon, with 20 cores and 40 threads, is built for server and workstation tasks like virtualization, database processing, and heavy multi-threaded compute. The Xeon's ECC memory support and quad-channel bandwidth further cement its role in reliability-focused server environments. The i5 has no ECC support and no recorded memory bandwidth, so it is not suited for those workloads.

In short, the Xeon wins on every measured performance metric, but the i5 wins in the context of mobile, power-limited, graphics-integrated systems. The data shows two entirely different market segments, and the choice depends on the use case rather than on any single benchmark.

Specification Differences

The table below lists only the fields where the two processors differ, based on the database records.

| Specification | Intel Core i5-8250U | Intel Xeon D-2799 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 20 |

| Threads | 8 | 40 |

| Base clock | 1600.00 MHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.40 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 15 W | 129 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1356 | Intel BGA 2579 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Ice Lake |

| Codename | Kaby Lake-R | Ice Lake-D |

| Generation | Core i5 (Kaby Lake-U Refresh) | Xeon D (Ice Lake-D) |

| Process node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Die size | 123 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 30 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Not listed | Quad-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not listed | 102.4 GB/s |

| ECC memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Not listed | Gen 4, 32 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | UHD 620 | None |

| Market segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release date | 2017-08-20 | 2022-02-23 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $1972 |

| Part number | SR3LA | SRLCTSRM2C |

Both chips use DDR4 memory, come from Intel, are in active production, and have locked multipliers. Both also share the same 3.40 GHz boost clock, which is notable given the massive difference in core count and market positioning.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon D-2799 dominates every recorded head-to-head test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2895 against the i5's 495, a delta of -82.9% for the i5. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 408 versus 69, again a -82.9% delta. These are enormous margins, and the pattern holds across every Cinebench version.

Cinebench R20 multi-core results: the Xeon scores 12063, the i5 scores 2065, a -82.9% difference. Single-core R20: 1703 versus 291, also -82.9%. The consistency of the delta across all tests is striking. Whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded, the Xeon's advantage is nearly identical in percentage terms.

Cinebench R23 tells the same story. Multi-core: the Xeon scores 28723, the i5 scores 4918, a -82.9% delta. Single-core: the Xeon scores 4055, the i5 scores 694, a -82.9% delta. The Xeon's single-core lead is particularly interesting because both processors share the same 3.40 GHz boost clock. The Xeon's superior per-core performance likely stems from its newer 10 nm Ice Lake architecture and larger per-core caches, though the database does not explicitly break down the cause.

The i5-8250U does have additional benchmarks in its own record that the Xeon lacks, including PassMark tests for data compression, encryption, and integer math. Those scores (76521 for data compression, 1979 for encryption, 20885 for integer math, and others) are not directly comparable because the Xeon has no corresponding entries in the database. The head-to-head section only includes the six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon wins all six.

The i5's average benchmark score across its full suite is 8577, while the Xeon's average is 8308. This is a peculiar result: despite losing every head-to-head test, the i5 has a higher average score because its PassMark tests are included in its average but not in the Xeon's. Both processors sit at the 64th percentile among all CPUs, according to the database. The i5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-10510U (delta 0%), the Intel Core i5-8265U (delta 0.1%), the AMD EPYC 7601 (delta -0.5%), and the Intel Pentium Gold G7400 (delta 0.7%). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon Platinum 8268 (delta -0.1%), the Intel Xeon Gold 5320T (delta -0.1%), the Intel Core i7-1065G7 (delta 0.2%), and the Intel Core i5-10210U (delta -0.4%). These rival lists show that each chip competes within its own performance tier, despite the Xeon's overwhelming head-to-head advantage.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance hierarchy. The Xeon D-2799 is faster than the Core i5-8250U in every single benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. Its 20 cores and 40 threads deliver roughly five to six times the multi-core Cinebench scores, and even its single-core scores are about five times higher. For any compute-intensive server or workstation workload, the Xeon is the obvious choice.

The Core i5-8250U is not a competitor in that space. It is a 15 W mobile chip with integrated graphics, designed for laptops where power efficiency and display output matter more than raw throughput. Its 4 cores and 8 threads are sufficient for everyday mobile tasks, and its UHD 620 graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU. The i5's nearest rivals, such as the Core i7-10510U and Core i5-8265U, are all mobile or low-power parts, confirming its position in the portable segment.

The Xeon's nearest rivals, by contrast, include server-class Xeon Platinum and Xeon Gold parts, plus some higher-end mobile chips like the Core i7-1065G7. This suggests the Xeon sits in a broad performance band where it competes with both enterprise silicon and premium consumer processors. Its ECC memory support, quad-channel bandwidth of 102.4 GB/s, and PCIe Gen 4 with 32 lanes make it appropriate for reliability-focused server deployments.

Who should pick which? A system builder targeting a power-efficient laptop should choose the Core i5-8250U, provided the workload fits within its modest core count and does not require ECC memory. A server administrator needing 40 threads, large 30 MB L3 cache, and enterprise features should choose the Xeon D-2799. The launch MSRP of $1972 for the Xeon reflects its enterprise positioning, while the i5 has no recorded launch price. The verdict is not close on performance, but the two chips serve completely different markets. Buyers should select based on platform and workload, not on raw benchmark scores alone.