Intel Core i5-8400H vs Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 and the Intel Core i5-8400H are both four-core, eight-thread processors, but they target fundamentally different segments. The Xeon is a server and workstation part, while the i5 is a mobile processor. Benchmark data shows the Xeon winning every single head-to-head comparison, yet the i5-8400H holds a slight edge in the overall average score due to additional benchmark data. The recorded results paint a clear picture: the older Xeon, despite its lower boost clock, outperforms the mobile chip across all tested Cinebench workloads, though the margin is consistently narrow, hovering around 7%.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are decisive. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Xeon E3-1245 v5 scores 687 points against the i5-8400H’s 644 points, a 6.7% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern: 96 versus 90, again a 6.7% lead for the Xeon. This consistency is notable. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 2865 in multi-core versus 2684, and 404 in single-core versus 378, with deltas of 6.7% and 6.9% respectively. In the most demanding workload recorded, Cinebench R23, the Xeon manages 6822 multi-core points and 963 single-core points, while the i5-8400H trails at 6392 and 902. The delta here is 6.7% and 6.8%, respectively.

The uniformity of these margins is striking. Across all six benchmark comparisons, the Xeon’s advantage never falls below 6.7% or rises above 6.9%. This suggests the performance gap is structural, not workload-dependent. The i5-8400H does have a higher boost clock, reaching 4.10 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 3.90 GHz, but that extra clock speed does not translate into a win in any recorded test. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz likely contributes to its sustained performance advantage, especially in longer multi-threaded runs where boost behavior can be limited by power and thermal constraints.

The average benchmark score tells a slightly different story. The i5-8400H posts an average score of 2003, while the Xeon averages 1973. This discrepancy is due to the i5 having additional Geekbench results in the database, which are not part of the head-to-head comparison set. The Geekbench multi-core score for the i5 is 3656, and its single-core score is 1281. These scores are not available for the Xeon, so they inflate the i5’s average without offering a direct comparison. In the specifically paired benchmarks, the Xeon is the clear winner with 6 out of 6 victories.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1245 v5 wins every single recorded benchmark against the i5-8400H. This includes all three generations of Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core variants. The largest recorded margins are in the R20 single-core test at 6.9% and the R23 single-core test at 6.8%. The smallest margins, all at 6.7%, appear in R15 multi-core, R15 single-core, R20 multi-core, and R23 multi-core. There is no test in the database where the i5-8400H comes out ahead.

The i5-8400H does have its own strengths, but they are not reflected in the benchmark scores. Its market segment is mobile, meaning it is designed for laptops and other portable devices. The recorded thermal design power (TDP) is 45 watts, which is lower than the Xeon’s 80 watts. This makes the i5 a more power-efficient choice for battery-powered systems, though the database does not record any performance-per-watt benchmarks. The i5 also has a higher boost clock at 4.10 GHz, which could offer advantages in short, bursty workloads that are not captured by the sustained Cinebench tests. Additionally, the i5 supports only DDR4 memory, which may be more modern and available in newer systems, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4.

For users prioritizing raw compute throughput in the tested workloads, the Xeon is the unequivocal choice. For those building or upgrading a mobile platform where power draw and thermals are primary concerns, the i5-8400H offers a lower TDP and a newer integrated graphics solution (UHD 630 versus HD Graphics P530), but the database does not include graphics benchmarks to quantify any advantage.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures. The Xeon E3-1245 v5 is based on Skylake, specifically the Skylake-DT codename, and belongs to the Xeon E3 generation. The i5-8400H uses the Coffee Lake architecture, with the Coffee Lake-H codename, and is part of the Core i5 generation. Both are manufactured on Intel’s 14 nm process node, so the transistor size is identical. However, the die sizes differ: the Xeon has a die size of 122 mm², while the i5 is slightly larger at 126 mm². The Xeon has a recorded transistor count of 1,750 million, while the i5 does not have a transistor count listed in the database.

Cache configurations show a clear difference in the last level cache. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, which is expected for their core counts. The L3 cache, however, is larger on the i5-8400H: 12 MB shared versus 8 MB shared on the Xeon. This larger L3 cache could theoretically benefit the i5 in workloads with high data reuse, but the benchmark results do not reflect any such advantage in the recorded Cinebench tests. The Xeon’s smaller L3 cache is paired with support for ECC memory, which is a feature absent on the i5. ECC memory is critical for server and workstation reliability, where data corruption is unacceptable.

Memory support also differs. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, with a dual-channel memory bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The i5-8400H supports only DDR4, and the database does not list its memory bus or bandwidth. The Xeon also has a PCIe Gen 3 interface with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i5’s PCIe configuration is not recorded. The Xeon’s integrated graphics is the HD Graphics P530, while the i5 uses the UHD 630. Both are integrated, but the i5’s solution is from a newer generation.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The base clock is one of the most significant differences: the Xeon runs at 3.50 GHz, while the i5-8400H runs at 2.50 GHz. This 1.0 GHz difference favors the Xeon in sustained workloads. The boost clock tells the opposite story: the i5 boosts to 4.10 GHz, which is 0.20 GHz higher than the Xeon’s 3.90 GHz. This means the i5 can reach higher peak speeds, but it cannot maintain them as effectively in the multi-threaded tests.

Thermal design power is another major differentiator. The Xeon has a TDP of 80 watts, while the i5-8400H has a TDP of 45 watts. This makes the i5 more suitable for thin-and-light laptops with limited cooling. The socket types are entirely different: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, a desktop and workstation socket, while the i5 uses Intel BGA 1440, a ball-grid array socket that is soldered to the motherboard. This means the i5 is not upgradeable, while the Xeon could potentially be replaced in a compatible motherboard.

Memory support differs as noted: the Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4, while the i5 supports only DDR4. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the i5. The market segment is recorded as Server and Workstation for the Xeon, and Mobile for the i5. The release dates are also different: the Xeon was released in October 2015, while the i5 was released in April 2018. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $294, but the i5 does not have a recorded launch MSRP. Both processors have locked multipliers, meaning they cannot be overclocked. The part numbers are SR2LL for the Xeon and SR3Z1 for the i5. The Xeon is at the 44th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the i5 sits at the 45th percentile, indicating they are nearly equivalent in overall standing despite the Xeon’s head-to-head wins.

FAQ

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

A: The Xeon E3-1245 v5 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 6822 versus 6392 for the i5-8400H, a 6.7% advantage. Similar margins appear in R15 (687 versus 644) and R20 (2865 versus 2684).

Q: Does the i5-8400H ever beat the Xeon in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon winning all six comparisons, with zero wins for the i5-8400H. The i5 does have a higher average benchmark score of 2003 versus 1973, but this is due to extra Geekbench results that are not part of the head-to-head set.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock?

A: The i5-8400H has a higher boost clock at 4.10 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 3.90 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon wins every benchmark, likely due to its higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.50 GHz.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E3-1245 v5 supports ECC memory. The i5-8400H does not have this feature, which is important for server and workstation reliability.

Q: What are the TDP ratings?

A: The Xeon has a TDP of 80 watts, while the i5-8400H has a TDP of 45 watts. This makes the i5 more suitable for mobile devices with limited cooling capacity.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node. The Xeon uses the Skylake architecture, while the i5 uses Coffee Lake. The die sizes are 122 mm² for the Xeon and 126 mm² for the i5.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E3-1245 v5 is the faster processor in every benchmark where both are compared. Anyone selecting a CPU for raw Cinebench performance, whether single-core or multi-core, should choose the Xeon. Its 6.7% to 6.9% advantage across all tests is consistent and reliable. The Xeon’s higher base clock and lower boost clock relative to the i5 suggest it is better suited for sustained workloads that do not rely on short bursts of high frequency.

The i5-8400H, however, has its own place. It is a mobile processor with a TDP of 45 watts, nearly half the Xeon’s 80 watts. This makes it a better fit for laptops where power consumption and heat dissipation are critical. The i5 also has twice the L3 cache of the Xeon, 12 MB versus 8 MB, and a newer integrated GPU, the UHD 630 versus the HD Graphics P530. For users who prioritize portability, lower power draw, and a more modern memory standard (DDR4 only), the i5-8400H is the sensible choice, even if it loses on raw performance.

The Xeon’s ECC memory support and server and workstation market segment make it the right pick for builds that require high reliability and data integrity. Its launch MSRP of $294 reflects its intended position in the professional market. The i5-8400H, with no recorded launch MSRP, was designed for mobile systems where upgradeability is not a factor, given its BGA 1440 socket.

In summary, the Xeon wins on performance, the i5 wins on efficiency and mobility. The 45th percentile ranking of the i5 versus the 44th for the Xeon is a statistical tie, but the head-to-head results are not. The Xeon E3-1245 v5 is the better processor for compute-bound tasks, while the i5-8400H is the better processor for a laptop chassis. The choice depends entirely on the platform and the workload.