Intel Core i5-8400H vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 and the Intel Core i5-8400H are both four-core, eight-thread processors from Intel, but they target very different segments of the market. The Xeon is a server and workstation part built on the Skylake architecture, while the i5-8400H is a mobile processor from the Coffee Lake generation. In the database, the Xeon E3-1240 v5 records an average benchmark score of 2030, placing it at the 45th percentile of all CPUs. The Core i5-8400H posts an average score of 2003, also at the 45th percentile. On the surface, these two chips appear closely matched, yet head-to-head testing reveals a clear and consistent edge for the Xeon in every recorded test.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the stronger performer across every benchmark recorded in the database. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons against the Core i5-8400H. In multi-core workloads, the Xeon consistently holds a 9.8% advantage, while in single-core tests, it leads by 10% to 10.1%. For users who need maximum processing throughput in a desktop or workstation, the Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the pick from these two.

The Core i5-8400H, despite its lower scores, is a mobile processor with a 45 TDP and an integrated UHD 630 graphics unit. It is designed for laptops or compact systems where a discrete GPU might not always be present. The data shows it is not the performance leader, but its integration includes graphics, which the Xeon lacks. The i5-8400H also supports a higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz, which could matter for short bursts of activity, but the benchmark results do not translate that into a win. For a user building a workstation or server with a dedicated graphics card, the Xeon E3-1240 v5 offers superior computing power. For a mobile user who needs a processor with built-in graphics and lower power draw, the i5-8400H is the only viable option given the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The most significant architectural distinction is the market segment each processor targets. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 belongs to the server and workstation category, built on the Skylake architecture with a Skylake-DT codename. It uses the Intel Socket 1151 and was released on October 18, 2015. Its production status is marked as end-of-life. The Core i5-8400H, on the other hand, is a mobile part from the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-H. It uses Intel BGA 1440, a socket designed for soldered mobile processors, and was released on April 1, 2018. It is also end-of-life.

Both processors are built on the same 14 nm process node, but there are key differences in the die. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 has a die size of 122 mm² and contains 1,750 million transistors. The Core i5-8400H has a slightly larger die at 126 mm², but the database does not record a transistor count for it. The larger die size on the Coffee Lake part likely comes from the integrated graphics, as the i5-8400H includes UHD 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

Another major difference lies in memory support. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, running in dual-channel mode with a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory, which is a crucial feature for error-sensitive server and workstation workloads. The Core i5-8400H supports only DDR4 memory, and the database records no memory bus, no memory bandwidth, and no ECC support. This makes the Xeon the only one of the two that can be used in a system requiring error-correcting memory.

PCIe and graphics also separate them. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 has PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU only, meaning it relies on an external GPU for display output. The Core i5-8400H has no recorded PCIe configuration, but it does have integrated UHD 630 graphics, which allows it to output video without a separate graphics card. This is a fundamental architectural trade-off: the Xeon expects a dedicated GPU, while the i5-8400H can function as a complete package on its own.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins all six recorded benchmarks, and the margin is remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 707 against the i5-8400H’s 644, a 9.8% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 99 versus 90, a 10% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern repeats: the Xeon posts 2948 in multi-core against 2684 for the i5-8400H, again a 9.8% advantage, and 416 in single-core against 378, a 10.1% lead.

The largest relative gap appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the Xeon leads by 10.1%. In Cinebench R23, the Xeon scores 7020 in multi-core and 991 in single-core, while the i5-8400H records 6392 and 902 respectively. That translates to a 9.8% lead in multi-core and a 9.9% lead in single-core. Across all tests, the Xeon’s advantage never dips below 9.8%, and it shows no weakness in any measured area.

The database also includes a Geekbench result for the i5-8400H, which is not present for the Xeon. The i5-8400H scores 3656 in Geekbench multi-core and 1281 in single-core. Since the Xeon has no Geekbench score, this does not affect the head-to-head comparison, but it does provide additional context for the i5-8400H’s absolute performance.

The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.50 GHz likely contributes to its sustained performance in multi-core tests, while its boost clock of 3.90 GHz is lower than the i5-8400H’s 4.10 GHz. Despite the i5-8400H having a higher boost, the Xeon still wins single-core tests by a clear margin, suggesting that the Xeon’s architecture or its higher base clock matters more than the peak boost clock in these synthetic workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the i5-8400H runs at 2.50 GHz, a full 1.0 GHz lower. The boost clock is reversed: the i5-8400H boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the Xeon boosts to 3.90 GHz. Thermal design power, or TDP, is another major difference: the Xeon is rated at 80 watts, while the i5-8400H is rated at 45 watts. This makes the i5-8400H a much more power-efficient part, suitable for mobile chassis, while the Xeon requires a more robust cooling solution.

Cache configuration is also distinct. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache differs: the Xeon has 8 MB shared, while the i5-8400H has 12 MB shared. That is a 4 MB difference in favor of the i5-8400H, yet it does not translate into a performance win in the benchmarks.

Memory support is a clear differentiator. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, has a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, and supports ECC memory. The i5-8400H supports only DDR4, with no memory bandwidth listed and no ECC support. The Xeon also has a dual-channel memory bus, while the i5-8400H’s memory bus is not recorded.

The socket is another key difference: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, which is a desktop LGA socket, while the i5-8400H uses Intel BGA 1440, a soldered mobile socket. This means the Xeon can be replaced or upgraded on a motherboard, while the i5-8400H is typically fixed to a motherboard. The Xeon has a recorded launch MSRP of $282, while no launch price is recorded for the i5-8400H.

The integrated graphics also differ. The Xeon has none, while the i5-8400H includes UHD 630. The market segment is also opposite: the Xeon belongs to Server/Workstation, and the i5-8400H is a Mobile processor.

FAQ

Q: Which processor performs better in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins all multi-core tests. It scores 707 in Cinebench R15, 2948 in R20, and 7020 in R23, while the Core i5-8400H scores 644, 2684, and 6392 respectively. The Xeon’s advantage is consistently 9.8% in these tests.

Q: Is the Core i5-8400H more power-efficient?

A: Yes. The i5-8400H has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 has a TDP of 80 watts. This makes the i5-8400H better suited for mobile devices, but the power difference does not result in a performance advantage on the benchmark data.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1240 v5 have integrated graphics?

A: No. The database records no integrated graphics for the Xeon E3-1240 v5. It relies on a separate graphics card. The Core i5-8400H, on the other hand, includes UHD 630 integrated graphics.

Q: Can the Xeon E3-1240 v5 use ECC memory?

A: Yes. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 has ECC memory support, while the Core i5-8400H does not. This is a key feature for error-checking in server and workstation environments.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Xeon E3-1240 v5 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i5-8400H has 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite the larger cache on the i5-8400H, the Xeon wins all benchmark tests.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i5-8400H has a higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 boosts to 3.90 GHz. However, the Xeon still records a 10% lead in single-core Cinebench R15 and a 9.9% lead in R23 single-core, indicating that boost clock alone does not determine performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins in every recorded benchmark, and its advantages are spread evenly across both multi-core and single-core tests. In multi-core scenarios, such as rendering or content creation, the Xeon holds a 9.8% lead over the i5-8400H in both Cinebench R15 and R20, and R23 as well. This makes it the stronger choice for workstation tasks that stress all cores simultaneously. In single-core workloads, the Xeon leads by 10.0% to 10.1%, which is slightly larger than its multi-core advantage, suggesting it is also better for lightly threaded applications.

The Core i5-8400H does not win any head-to-head benchmark. Its only advantages lie in non-performance specifications. It has a lower TDP of 45 watts against the Xeon’s 80 watts, making it a better fit for battery-powered mobile devices. It has integrated UHD 630 graphics, allowing for a system with no external GPU. It also has a larger L3 cache of 12 MB compared to 8 MB, and a higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz, though these do not yield benchmark wins.

The Xeon E3-1240 v5 is the clear winner for anyone building a desktop workstation or server that can accommodate a discrete GPU and higher power draw. It offers ECC memory support, dual-channel DDR3 and DDR4 support, and a 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth. Its data shows a consistent 9.8% to 10.1% performance advantage across all Cinebench tests, and its average benchmark score of 2030 is higher than the i5-8400H’s 2003, despite both processors sitting at the 45th percentile. The i5-8400H, with its mobile socket and integrated graphics, is the only choice for a mobile system, but the data indicates it is not a performance substitute for the Xeon.