Intel Core i5-8300H vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i5-8300H. Across six Cinebench tests, the Xeon takes all six victories with no wins for the mobile chip.

The most striking pattern is the consistency of the margin. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 707 against the i5's 629, a 12.4% advantage. The single-core R15 result is nearly identical: 99 versus 88, a 12.5% lead. Those same percentages repeat almost exactly in the newer tests. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 2948 versus 2622, again 12.4% ahead. R20 single-core is 416 against 370, another 12.4%. The R23 multicore run gives 7020 versus 6245, and R23 single-core gives 991 versus 881, with deltas of 12.4% and 12.5% respectively.

What does this consistency tell you? It means the Xeon's advantage is not workload-specific. Whether the test stresses all cores or just one, the gap stays at roughly 12.5%. That suggests a fundamental clock speed or architectural edge rather than a cache or memory quirk. The Xeon also posts a Geekbench result that the i5 does not have in the database, but that extra data point does not change the overall picture.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the trend. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 carries an average score of 2030, while the i5-8300H sits at 2005. Both CPUs land at the 45th percentile of all processors in the database, meaning they are effectively peers in the broader landscape. But the Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i7-5775R (2031, delta -0.1%) and the Xeon E3-1280 v5 (2029, delta +0.1%), while the i5's closest competitors are the Xeon D-1712TR (2004, delta 0%) and the Core i5-8400H (2003, delta +0.1%). The Xeon is punching slightly above its weight class, while the i5 is right at the expected level.

If you are building a system and every benchmark point matters, the Xeon is the clear pick. A 12.4% margin across the board is not a rounding error; it is a real, repeatable performance gap.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 14 nm process node, so the underlying transistor geometry is identical. The similarities end there. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 uses the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-DT codename, while the i5-8300H is Coffee Lake with the Coffee Lake-H codename. That is a generation apart in Intel's desktop and mobile lineup.

The core and thread counts match: 4 cores and 8 threads on both sides. No advantage there. The L1 and L2 caches are the same per-core structure: 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2. The difference appears in L3. The Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i5-8300H has 12 MB shared. That is a 50% larger last-level cache for the mobile chip, which can help in cache-sensitive workloads, but the benchmark data shows it does not overcome the Xeon's other advantages.

Clock speeds tell a clearer story. The Xeon runs a 3.50 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.90 GHz. The i5-8300H starts at 2.30 GHz base and also boosts to 3.90 GHz. The identical boost ceiling explains why single-core performance is close in percentage terms, but the much higher base clock on the Xeon helps in sustained all-core loads where boost cannot be maintained indefinitely.

The memory systems diverge significantly. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory in dual-channel configuration with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The i5-8300H supports only DDR4, with no memory bus or bandwidth figures recorded in the database. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is a server and workstation feature. The i5 does not have ECC support.

Integrated graphics are another split. The Xeon has no integrated GPU at all, which is typical for server-oriented parts. The i5-8300H includes Intel UHD 630 graphics, making it a viable option for systems that need a display output without a discrete graphics card.

The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 1151, a desktop platform, while the i5-8300H is soldered to Intel BGA 1440, a mobile platform. The Xeon's die size is 122 mm² with 1,750 million transistors, and the i5's die is slightly larger at 126 mm² with no transistor count recorded. The Xeon's PCIe implementation is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i5 has no PCIe details listed. The Xeon targets the server and workstation market segment, while the i5 is a mobile part.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 7020 against the i5-8300H's 6245, a 12.4% lead. R15 and R20 multicore show the same 12.4% margin.

Q: Is the i5-8300H better in single-core performance?

A: No. The Xeon wins all single-core tests by 12.4% to 12.5%. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 991 versus 881 for the i5.

Q: Can the i5-8300H use ECC memory?

A: No. ECC support is listed only for the Xeon E3-1240 v5. The i5-8300H does not have ECC memory support.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes. Both have 4 cores and 8 threads. The performance difference comes from clock speeds and architecture, not core count.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The i5-8300H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon has 8 MB. The i5 has 50% more L3 cache, but it does not translate into a benchmark win.

Q: Are these CPUs on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's 14 nm process node. The Xeon uses Skylake architecture, and the i5 uses Coffee Lake.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The base clock is 3.50 GHz on the Xeon versus 2.30 GHz on the i5. The boost clock is identical at 3.90 GHz for both. The thermal design power is 80 watts for the Xeon and 45 watts for the i5, reflecting the desktop versus mobile split.

The sockets are completely different: Intel Socket 1151 for the Xeon, Intel BGA 1440 for the i5. The architecture differs as well: Skylake for the Xeon, Coffee Lake for the i5. The process node matches at 14 nm.

The cache hierarchy shows a difference only at the L3 level. The Xeon has 8 MB shared, and the i5 has 12 MB shared. L1 and L2 are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core.

Memory support differs: the Xeon handles both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i5 is DDR4 only. The Xeon has dual-channel memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, and the i5 has no memory bus or bandwidth data recorded. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon only.

The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the i5 includes UHD 630. The PCIe configuration is Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the Xeon, with no PCIe data for the i5. The market segments are server and workstation versus mobile. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $282, and the i5 has no recorded launch MSRP. The transistor count is 1,750 million for the Xeon, with no figure for the i5. The die size is 122 mm² for the Xeon and 126 mm² for the i5. The Xeon was released in October 2015, and the i5 in April 2018. Both are end-of-life products with locked multipliers.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins all six head-to-head tests, with margins between 12.4% and 12.5%. The i5-8300H does not win a single comparison. If you need raw compute performance, the Xeon is the only choice based on these measurements.

The Xeon's advantages come from a higher base clock (3.50 GHz versus 2.30 GHz) and a desktop platform with a higher 80 watt TDP. The i5's advantages are its 12 MB L3 cache, integrated UHD 630 graphics, lower 45 watt TDP, and newer release date. But none of those advantages appear in the benchmark scores. The i5's larger cache and newer architecture do not close the performance gap.

The average benchmark scores confirm the Xeon's slight edge: 2030 versus 2005. Both sit at the 45th percentile among all CPUs, so they are closely matched in the broader context, but the Xeon's nearest rivals are slightly stronger (Core i7-5775R at 2031) while the i5's are slightly weaker (Xeon D-1712TR at 2004).

The verdict is straightforward: choose the Xeon E3-1240 v5 for performance. Choose the i5-8300H only if you need its specific features, such as integrated graphics, lower power draw, or the mobile BGA form factor. The data does not support choosing the i5 for compute speed.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins in every benchmark category recorded in the database. It takes the multicore tests across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, and it takes the single-core tests in the same three versions. The margins are consistent at roughly 12.4% for multicore and 12.5% for single-core. This makes the Xeon the better choice for CPU-bound workloads like rendering, compilation, and heavy multitasking.

The i5-8300H does not win any recorded benchmarks, but it has situational advantages outside the performance numbers. It includes integrated UHD 630 graphics, so it can run a display without a discrete GPU. Its 45 watt TDP makes it more suitable for thermally constrained or battery-powered systems, though it is a mobile part and not drop-in compatible with the Xeon's desktop socket. The i5 also has 12 MB of L3 cache versus 8 MB, which could help in specific cache-sensitive tasks, but the benchmark data does not show a net benefit.

For a desktop workstation or server build where performance is paramount, the Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the clear winner. For a mobile laptop or a system where integrated graphics and lower power consumption matter more than raw compute, the i5-8300H has a role. But if you are comparing pure processing power, the Xeon wins every test in the database, and that is the final word.