Intel Core i5-9400T vs Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 across every head-to-head benchmark in the database. The Xeon wins all six Cinebench tests, though the margins are narrow in every case. The largest single-core gap appears in Cinebench R15, where the Xeon scores 102 against the Core i5-9400T's 97, a 4.9% advantage. The smallest single-core gap is in Cinebench R23, where the Xeon leads 1013 to 973, a 3.9% delta. Multi-core results follow the same pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon posts 723 versus 695, a 3.9% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows 3015 against 2896, also a 3.9% gap. The R23 multi-core result is 7179 versus 6896, again 3.9%. The Xeon's single-core advantage in R20 is 425 to 408, a 4% margin.

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Across all six tests, the Xeon's advantage hovers between 3.9% and 4.9%. There is no test where the Core i5-9400T pulls ahead, and there is no test where the Xeon's lead extends beyond the 4.9% peak seen in Cinebench R15 single-core. The data indicates that the Xeon E5-2628 v3 is uniformly faster in this benchmark suite, but the margin is modest. A 3.9% to 4.9% difference is within the range where real-world application performance could vary depending on memory configuration, cooling, and workload characteristics. The database's aggregate scores reinforce this picture. The Core i5-9400T has an average benchmark score of 2136, while the Xeon E5-2628 v3 sits at 2076. That places the i5 in the 47th percentile of all CPUs and the Xeon in the 46th percentile. Despite losing every head-to-head test, the i5 has a slightly higher aggregate average because the Geekbench tests are included in its average but not in the head-to-head comparison. The i5's Geekbench multi-core score is 3969 and single-core is 1152, and these pull its average upward relative to the Xeon, which has no Geekbench scores recorded.

The nearest rivals for the i5-9400T show how close these mid-range processors cluster. The AMD Ryzen 3 5300U sits at an average score of 2135, essentially identical with a 0% delta. The AMD Ryzen 5 7520C is at 2127, a 0.4% difference. The AMD Ryzen 3 3300X scores 2148, which is 0.6% higher. The Intel Core i7-1160G7 is at 2124, 0.6% lower. The Xeon's nearest rivals are similarly tight. The Intel Xeon W-2123 averages 2079, a 0.1% difference. The Intel Core i3-9350KF is at 2082, 0.3% higher. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 scores 2067, 0.5% lower. The AMD Ryzen Embedded R2544 is at 2086, 0.5% higher. Both processors sit in a dense cluster of comparable parts, and their head-to-head margin of roughly 4% is larger than the differences among their nearest neighbors.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 is the faster processor in every measured Cinebench test. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with deltas from 3.9% to 4.9%. The Core i5-9400T does not win a single recorded test. That said, the margins are small enough that the choice depends on the broader system context. The i5-9400T draws 35W TDP, while the Xeon draws 85W. The i5 uses the Intel Socket 1151 platform, while the Xeon requires Intel Socket 2011-3. The i5 has integrated graphics in the form of UHD 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not. The Xeon has a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, while the i5 is dual-channel at 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, versus 16 for the i5.

For a user who needs ECC memory, high memory bandwidth, or many PCIe lanes, the Xeon is the clear choice despite its modest benchmark lead. For a user who needs integrated graphics, lower power draw, or a standard desktop socket, the i5 is the practical pick, even though it loses every benchmark. The data does not support a claim that the i5 is faster in any workload represented by these tests. It simply offers different platform features at a lower power envelope. The Xeon's 8 cores and 16 threads versus the i5's 6 cores and 6 threads likely explains the multi-core advantage, though the single-core lead suggests the Xeon's higher base clock of 2.50 GHz, compared to 1.80 GHz for the i5, also plays a role. The i5's boost clock is 3.40 GHz, higher than the Xeon's 3.00 GHz, yet the Xeon still wins single-core tests, which indicates the per-core performance difference is not solely clock-driven.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it leads by 3.9%. In R15 single-core, it leads by 4.9%. In R20 multi-core and single-core, it leads by 3.9% and 4%, respectively. In R23 multi-core and single-core, it leads by 3.9% in both. There is no category where the Core i5-9400T takes a win. The only category where the i5 shows a relative strength is in its aggregate average benchmark score, which includes Geekbench results. The i5's Geekbench multi-core score of 3969 and single-core score of 1152 are not part of the head-to-head comparison, but they contribute to its 2136 average, which is 60 points higher than the Xeon's 2076. This means the i5 has a broader benchmark profile in the database, with results across both Cinebench and Geekbench, while the Xeon is only recorded in Cinebench tests.

The use-case split follows the platform features more than the benchmark scores. The Xeon is suited for server or workstation workloads that benefit from ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, and 40 PCIe lanes. The i5 is suited for desktop use where integrated graphics, a 35W TDP, and the Socket 1151 platform are advantageous. In terms of raw rendering performance, the Xeon is ahead by roughly 4% across the board. In terms of platform flexibility, the i5 offers features the Xeon lacks, specifically integrated graphics and lower power consumption. The Xeon's 20 MB of shared L3 cache is more than double the i5's 9 MB, which may help in cache-sensitive workloads. The Xeon also has a larger die at 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors, compared to the i5's unspecified die size and transistor count, but those physical differences do not translate into a large benchmark advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 wins all six recorded head-to-head tests against the Intel Core i5-9400T. The deltas range from 3.9% to 4.9% in favor of the Xeon.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 scores 7179 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core i5-9400T scores 6896. The Xeon leads by 3.9%.

Q: Does the Core i5-9400T have any benchmark advantage over the Xeon?

A: In the head-to-head comparison, no. The i5 loses all six tests. However, the i5 has a higher aggregate average benchmark score of 2136, versus 2076 for the Xeon, because the i5 includes Geekbench scores in its average while the Xeon does not.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-9400T has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-9400T does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 has a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i5-9400T has a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-9400T and Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 come from different architectural generations. The i5 uses the Coffee Lake architecture, built on a 14 nm process at Intel. The Xeon uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process. The i5 belongs to the Core i5 lineup under the Coffee Lake Refresh generation, while the Xeon belongs to the Xeon E5 family under the Haswell-EP generation. The process node difference is significant: 14 nm versus 22 nm, which explains the i5's lower 35W TDP compared to the Xeon's 85W TDP.

The core configurations differ substantially. The i5 has 6 cores and 6 threads, with no hyper-threading. The Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads, enabling higher parallel throughput. The base clocks are 1.80 GHz for the i5 and 2.50 GHz for the Xeon. The boost clocks are 3.40 GHz for the i5 and 3.00 GHz for the Xeon. The i5 has a higher boost clock, yet the Xeon still wins single-core benchmarks, indicating that the Xeon's per-core efficiency at its base frequency is stronger than the i5's at its boost frequency in these tests.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is 9 MB shared on the i5 and 20 MB shared on the Xeon. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is consistent with its server positioning. The Xeon has a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors, while the i5's die size and transistor count are not recorded in the database.

Memory support diverges as well. Both support DDR4, but the i5 uses a dual-channel memory bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Xeon uses a quad-channel bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive server workloads; the i5 does not. PCIe connectivity differs: the i5 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The i5 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The sockets are incompatible: the i5 uses Intel Socket 1151, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3.

The production status for both is end-of-life, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP in the database. The i5 was released in August 2018, and the Xeon was released in September 2014. The i5 has a part number of SR3X8, and the Xeon has SR201. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The i5's market segment is desktop, while the Xeon's is server or workstation. The benchmark percentiles place the i5 at 47 and the Xeon at 46, reflecting their similar aggregate performance despite the architectural differences. The Xeon's 22 nm process and older Haswell architecture are offset by more cores, more threads, and a larger cache, resulting in a slight but consistent benchmark advantage over the newer, lower-power i5.