Intel Core i5-9500F vs Intel Xeon E5-2628L v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2628L v3 and Intel Core i5-9500F occupy different corners of the Intel lineup, one a server part from the Haswell-EP generation and the other a desktop chip from Coffee Lake. The recorded benchmark data shows a clear overall winner, but the two processors are built for different roles, and their specifications reflect that split.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous: the Xeon E5-2628L v3 wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons. The Core i5-9500F does not win a single head-to-head test. The Xeon's margins are consistent, with an 11.4% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core, and a 10.8% edge in R15 single-core.

That said, the i5-9500F has benchmark results that are not part of the head-to-head set. The database records Geekbench multi-core and single-core scores for the i5 (5185 and 1504 respectively), while the Xeon has no Geekbench entries. So in the tests where both chips have recorded scores, the Xeon dominates. In tests where only the i5 has data, there is no comparison to draw.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. For workloads that resemble Cinebench rendering, which stresses all cores and threads, the Xeon's 10-core, 20-thread configuration gives it a decisive edge. The i5, with 6 cores and 6 threads, is a desktop part that trades thread count for higher clock speeds, but those higher clocks do not translate into Cinebench wins in the recorded data. The Xeon is the stronger choice for multi-threaded server or workstation tasks, while the i5 offers a more compact desktop platform with a smaller memory footprint and no ECC requirement.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The Xeon E5-2628L v3 is built on the Haswell-EP architecture using a 22 nm process, with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The Core i5-9500F uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process; the database does not list its transistor count or die size.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Xeon has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the i5 has 6 cores and 6 threads. That means the Xeon supports simultaneous multithreading and the i5 does not. The cache hierarchy also differs: both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the Xeon has 25 MB of shared L3 cache versus 9 MB on the i5.

Memory support is another major divergence. Both support DDR4, but the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i5 uses a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory; the i5 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the i5 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

The sockets are incompatible. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, the i5 uses Intel Socket 1151. The market segments reflect this: the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part, the i5 is a Desktop part. Both are end-of-life and have locked multipliers. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $1364; the i5 has no recorded launch MSRP.

Clock speeds favor the i5 on paper. The i5 has a 3.00 GHz base clock and a 4.40 GHz boost clock, while the Xeon has a 2.00 GHz base and a 2.50 GHz boost. The i5 also has a lower TDP at 65 W versus 75 W. Yet in the recorded Cinebench results, the Xeon still wins, which points to the thread count and cache advantages outweighing the clock speed deficit in these workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table contains six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon wins all of them. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 949 against the i5's 852, an 11.4% advantage. In R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 133 against 120, a 10.8% edge. The R20 multi-core test shows the Xeon at 3955 versus 3550, again 11.4%. R20 single-core has the Xeon at 558 versus 501, 11.4%. R23 multi-core shows 9417 versus 8453, 11.4%. R23 single-core shows 1329 versus 1193, 11.4%.

The consistency of the margin is notable. Five of the six tests show exactly 11.4%, and the sixth (R15 single-core) shows 10.8%. This suggests the Xeon's advantage is structural, tied to its core and thread count, rather than workload-specific. The single-core tests are the closest, but even there the Xeon leads by roughly 11%.

The i5's higher clock speeds do not show up as wins in these tests. Its 4.40 GHz boost clock is higher than the Xeon's 2.50 GHz boost, yet the Xeon still posts higher single-core Cinebench scores. This could reflect the Xeon's larger L3 cache or architectural differences, but the database does not provide per-test breakdowns beyond the scores themselves.

The i5 does have Geekbench results that are not matched by the Xeon in the head-to-head set. Its Geekbench multi-core score is 5185 and single-core is 1504. These are recorded in the database but do not factor into the head-to-head comparison because the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench entries.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2628L v3 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. The Core i5-9500F has zero wins in the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How large is the Xeon's advantage in multi-core tests?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 9417 versus the i5's 8453, an 11.4% difference. The R20 multi-core test shows 3955 versus 3550, also 11.4%.

Q: Does the i5-9500F win in single-core tests?

A: No. The Xeon leads in Cinebench R15 single-core with 133 versus 120 (10.8%), and in R20 single-core with 558 versus 501 (11.4%). The R23 single-core test also goes to the Xeon, 1329 versus 1193 (11.4%).

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon has 10 cores and 20 threads. The i5 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The Xeon supports simultaneous multithreading; the i5 does not.

Q: Do the two processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes for the Xeon, which has ECC memory support. The i5 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What memory bandwidth do they offer?

A: The Xeon provides 59.7 GB/s over a quad-channel DDR4 bus. The i5 provides 42.7 GB/s over a dual-channel DDR4 bus.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon E5-2628L v3 | Intel Core i5-9500F |

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

| Cores | 10 | 6 |

| Threads | 20 | 6 |

| Base clock | 2.00 GHz | 3.00 GHz |

| Boost clock | 2.50 GHz | 4.40 GHz |

| TDP | 75 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel Socket 1151 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Coffee Lake |

| Process node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | Not listed |

| Die size | 356 mm² | Not listed |

| L3 cache | 25 MB (shared) | 9 MB (shared) |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 lanes | Gen 3, 16 lanes |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Launch MSRP | $1364 | Not listed |

The two chips share some traits: both are Intel parts, both support DDR4, both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, both are end-of-life, and both have locked multipliers. Neither has integrated graphics. The differences above are where the two diverge.

The average benchmark scores place the Xeon at 2724 and the i5 at 2670. Both sit at the 50th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 7 4700U (2722, 0.1% behind), the Intel Core i7-11390H (2715, 0.3% behind), the Intel Xeon D-1577 (2715, 0.3% behind), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5650U (2713, 0.4% behind). The i5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-9700T (2668, 0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 (2664, 0.2% behind), the Intel Core i7-1365UE (2677, 0.3% ahead), and the Intel Core i7-9750HF (2662, 0.3% behind).

The data shows a clear performance hierarchy in the Cinebench suite, with the Xeon ahead in every recorded comparison. The i5's higher clocks and lower TDP make it a more efficient desktop part on paper, but the Xeon's extra cores, threads, cache, and memory bandwidth give it the edge in rendering workloads. For buyers choosing between these two end-of-life processors, the Xeon is the stronger choice for multi-threaded server or workstation tasks, while the i5 offers a more compact desktop platform with a smaller memory footprint and no ECC requirement.