Intel Core i7-11375H vs Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 and the Intel Core i7-11375H represent two vastly different eras of Intel silicon, yet they land in the same performance percentile. Both CPUs hold a 52nd percentile ranking against all processors in the database, with average benchmark scores of 3066 and 3018, respectively. The Xeon, a Haswell-EP server part, and the Core i7, a Tiger Lake-H mobile chip, are separated by seven years of architectural evolution, yet the benchmark data shows a remarkably close contest, with the older Xeon taking a clean sweep of all six head-to-head comparisons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking outcome of this comparison is the Xeon’s complete victory. In every single benchmark test conducted, the Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 outperformed the Core i7-11375H, though the margins are consistently narrow. The largest win for the Xeon comes in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where it scored 150 against the Core i7’s 138, a delta of 8.7%. This result is surprising given the Core i7’s higher clock speeds, but the data is unambiguous.

In multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon’s advantage is slightly smaller but still decisive. The Cinebench R15 multicore test shows the Xeon scoring 1068 versus 985 for the Core i7, a difference of 8.4%. This pattern holds through the newer Cinebench versions: in R20 multicore, the Xeon scores 4452 against 4105 (8.5% ahead), and in R23 multicore, it scores 10601 against 9775 (8.5% ahead). The consistency of these deltas—hovering between 8.4% and 8.5% across all multicore tests—suggests a stable performance gap rather than a workload-specific anomaly.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. The Xeon leads by 8.5% in Cinebench R20 (628 vs 579) and by 8.4% in Cinebench R23 (1496 vs 1380). These are not trivial margins; they indicate that despite the Core i7’s newer architecture and significantly higher boost clock, the Xeon’s older but larger design holds a genuine advantage. The Core i7 does have additional Geekbench results—5383 multicore and 1800 single-core—but since the Xeon lacks corresponding scores in that test suite, those numbers cannot be directly compared here. Net result: the Xeon wins all six contested benchmarks, with the Core i7 failing to secure a single victory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Xeon E5-2618L v3 is built on Intel’s 22 nm process with a die size of 356 mm², packing 2,600 million transistors. It uses the Haswell-EP microarchitecture, which is designed for server and workstation workloads. In contrast, the Core i7-11375H uses the Tiger Lake-H architecture on a 10 nm process, but with a much smaller die of just 146.1 mm². The transistor count for the Core i7 is not listed, but the die size difference alone highlights the design philosophy divergence.

Core and thread counts differ dramatically. The Xeon offers 8 cores and 16 threads, double the Core i7’s 4 cores and 8 threads. However, the Core i7 compensates with far higher clock speeds: its base clock is 3.00 GHz and boost reaches 5.00 GHz, versus the Xeon’s 2.30 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. Cache configurations also diverge. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, with a substantial 20 MB shared L3 cache. The Core i7 has a larger L1 at 80 KB per core and a much larger L2 at 1.25 MB per core, but its shared L3 is only 12 MB. This means the Xeon has 67% more L3 cache overall, which likely contributes to its benchmark wins despite lower clocks.

Memory support represents another key split. The Xeon uses quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and supports ECC memory. The Core i7 is dual-channel with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Xeon also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, while the Core i7 provides PCIe Gen 4 with only 20 lanes. The Core i7 does include integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. Process node, memory channels, PCIe generation, and cache size all favor the Xeon for raw throughput, while the Core i7’s advantages are clock speed, process efficiency, and integrated graphics. TDP reflects this: the Xeon draws 75W, while the Core i7 is rated at just 28W.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark data, the Xeon E5-2618L v3 wins every workload category that was tested. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, across both single-core and multicore tests, the Xeon leads by roughly 8.4% to 8.7%. This makes it the clear choice for any task that relies on CPU rendering or multi-threaded compute, as demonstrated by the consistent multicore deltas. The Xeon’s 8 cores, 16 threads, larger 20 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bandwidth all support this outcome. For server-side workloads, scientific computing, or any application where ECC memory is required, the Xeon is the only option here, as the Core i7 does not support ECC.

The Core i7-11375H does not win any benchmark in this head-to-head, but its data suggests strengths in other contexts. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock is the highest available among the two, and its 28W TDP is less than half the Xeon’s 75W. The integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics provide a display output and basic GPU acceleration that the Xeon cannot offer. The Core i7 also uses a modern BGA 1449 socket with PCIe Gen 4, which supports faster storage and peripheral connectivity. For mobile or compact systems where power efficiency, integrated graphics, and a smaller footprint matter more than raw benchmark scores, the Core i7 is the pragmatic pick. However, within the specific benchmark suite used here, the Xeon is the unequivocal winner.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 scores 1496, which is 8.4% higher than the Core i7-11375H’s 1380.

Q: Does the Core i7-11375H support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core i7-11375H does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon E5-2618L v3 does.

Q: What is the difference in multicore performance in Cinebench R20?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 scores 4452, while the Core i7-11375H scores 4105, giving the Xeon an 8.5% lead.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 12 MB on the Core i7-11375H.

Q: What are the process nodes for these two CPUs?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 uses a 22 nm process, while the Core i7-11375H uses a 10 nm process.

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i7-11375H has a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon E5-2618L v3’s 3.40 GHz.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is clear: the Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 outperforms the Intel Core i7-11375H in every measured category. Across six Cinebench tests, the Xeon maintains a lead of 8.4% to 8.7%, with its strongest advantage in single-core R15. The Xeon accomplishes this with an older 22 nm process, lower clock speeds, and a higher TDP of 75W, but it compensates with double the cores, 67% more L3 cache, and quad-channel memory bandwidth. For any user prioritizing raw CPU rendering performance, the Xeon is the superior choice based on this data alone.

The Core i7-11375H should be selected by users who cannot use a server platform. Its 28W TDP, integrated Iris XE graphics, and PCIe Gen 4 support make it suitable for thin-and-light laptops or compact systems where the Xeon’s 75W TDP and lack of integrated graphics are disqualifying. The Core i7 also has a 5.00 GHz boost clock, which is higher than the Xeon’s 3.40 GHz, but the benchmark results show this does not translate to a win in any Cinebench test. Ultimately, the Xeon wins on performance, while the Core i7 wins on efficiency and platform flexibility. The launch MSRP for the Xeon is $779, and for the Core i7 it is $482.