Intel Core i7-11390H vs Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-11390H and Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 represent two entirely different design philosophies: a low-power mobile processor versus a high-core-count server chip. The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Xeon E5-2640 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests, with a consistent performance advantage of roughly 12% across both single-core and multi-core workloads. However, the Core i7-11390H is not without merit, as it brings a much newer architecture, integrated graphics, and significantly lower power consumption to the table.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-11390H has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon E5-2640 v3 in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Xeon leads by 12.1% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (9348 vs 8218) and by the same 12.1% margin in Cinebench R20 multi-core (3926 vs 3451).

Q: Does the Xeon also win in single-core performance?

A: Yes, it wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 1319 versus 1160 for the Core i7, a 12.1% lead. The margin is 11.9% in Cinebench R20 single-core (553 vs 487).

Q: What are the TDP differences between these two CPUs?

A: The Core i7-11390H has a TDP of 28 watts, while the Xeon E5-2640 v3 has a TDP of 90 watts.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-11390H does not.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The Core i7-11390H features Iris XE 96EU integrated graphics. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 does not have any integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures. The Core i7-11390H uses the Tiger Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, while the Xeon E5-2640 v3 is based on the older Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process. This generational gap is evident in the transistor count and die size: the Xeon has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, whereas the Core i7 uses a much smaller 146.1 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The Core i7-11390H allocates 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, with a total of 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but compensates with a larger 20 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon’s extra L3 capacity is typical for server workloads, while the Core i7’s per-core L2 allocation favors lower-latency access.

Memory architecture also separates these parts. Both support DDR4, but the Xeon E5-2640 v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Core i7-11390H uses a dual-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a critical feature for data integrity in server environments. PCIe support is another differentiator: the Core i7 offers Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The Xeon’s extra lanes are geared toward expansion-heavy server boards, while the Gen 4 interface on the Core i7 offers higher per-lane bandwidth.

The market segments are polar opposites. The Core i7-11390H is a mobile processor with a 28-watt TDP, designed for laptops, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part with a 90-watt TDP on the Intel Socket 2011-3. The Xeon is also listed as end-of-life, while the Core i7 remains in active production.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results give a clear edge to the Xeon E5-2640 v3 across the board, but the nature of each win matters. The Xeon’s victories are consistent, with a 12.1% lead in five of the six tests and an 11.9% lead in the sixth. This suggests that the Xeon’s advantage is structural—its 8 cores and 16 threads provide more parallel processing power, and even in single-core tests, it manages a higher score despite a lower boost clock of 3.40 GHz versus 5.00 GHz on the Core i7.

The Core i7-11390H wins in areas not captured by raw compute benchmarks. It features integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics, making it a complete package for systems that do not require a discrete GPU. Its 28-watt TDP is a fraction of the Xeon’s 90-watt requirement, enabling thinner, lighter, and quieter designs. The newer Tiger Lake architecture also brings PCIe Gen 4 support, which can be beneficial for fast NVMe storage. For a mobile user, the Core i7 is the only practical choice; the Xeon’s socket and power requirements preclude its use in portable devices.

In multi-threaded server workloads like database queries or virtualization, the Xeon’s 16 threads and 20 MB of L3 cache are the deciding factors. The quad-channel memory bus also gives it a bandwidth advantage that can matter in memory-intensive tasks. For single-threaded responsiveness, the data shows the Xeon still wins, but by a narrow margin that may be imperceptible in daily use.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-11390H | Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 |

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

| Cores | 4 | 8 |

| Threads | 8 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 5.00 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 28 W | 90 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1449 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Process Node | 10 nm | 22 nm |

| L1 Cache (per core) | 80 KB | 64 KB |

| L2 Cache (per core) | 1.25 MB | 256 KB |

| L3 Cache (shared) | 12 MB | 20 MB |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 3, 40 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | Iris XE 96EU | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Active | End-of-life |

| Launch MSRP | $426 | $939 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are a clean sweep for the Xeon E5-2640 v3, but the margins tell a nuanced story. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 942 against the Core i7’s 828, a 12.1% lead. The single-core R15 test shows the same 12.1% delta, with scores of 132 and 116. This consistency across R15 is notable because the Core i7’s boost clock is significantly higher, yet it still trails.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The Xeon wins multi-core with 3926 points versus 3451, again a 12.1% margin. The single-core result is 553 versus 487, an 11.9% gap. The slight reduction in the single-core margin—from 12.1% to 11.9%—suggests that the Core i7’s newer architecture narrows the gap in lightly threaded workloads, though it does not overcome the Xeon’s raw efficiency.

The most modern test, Cinebench R23, repeats the trend. The Xeon scores 9348 in multi-core versus 8218 for the Core i7, a 12.1% difference. In single-core, the Xeon’s 1319 beats the Core i7’s 1160 by the same 12.1%. These results indicate that the Xeon’s advantage is not workload-specific; it wins by an almost identical margin regardless of the benchmark generation or thread count. The data shows no scenario where the Core i7 takes the lead, and the Xeon’s 6-0 win record confirms its superior compute capacity in this comparison.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 is the clear performance winner in this comparison, taking all six head-to-head benchmarks with a consistent 12% advantage. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB of L3 cache make it the better choice for multi-threaded server or workstation tasks where raw throughput is paramount. The quad-channel memory bus and ECC support further cement its position for reliability-focused environments. However, the Xeon’s 90-watt TDP, end-of-life status, and lack of integrated graphics make it unsuitable for mobile or compact systems.

The Intel Core i7-11390H is the better pick for laptop users who need a balance of performance and portability. Its 28-watt TDP enables fanless or low-noise designs, and the integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics eliminate the need for a separate GPU in everyday tasks. The newer 10 nm Tiger Lake architecture brings PCIe Gen 4 support, which is a forward-looking feature for storage speeds. Its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz does not translate to a win in these benchmarks, but it remains a capable mobile processor. Users who prioritize battery life, portability, and modern platform features should choose the Core i7, while those who need maximum compute power in a stationary workstation should opt for the Xeon.