Intel Core i7-11390H vs Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data presents a strikingly one-sided picture. Across all six Cinebench comparisons, the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins decisively, with a consistent margin of roughly 17% to 18% over the Intel Core i7-11390H. This uniformity is unusual; typically, a newer mobile chip would at least claim the single-core crown, but the data does not support that expectation here.

In multi-core workloads, the Xeon’s advantage is clear. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 971 against the Core i7’s 828, a delta of 17.3%. The R20 multicore test shows 4049 versus 3451, again a 17.3% gap. The R23 multicore result follows the same pattern: 9642 for the Xeon and 8218 for the Core i7, with the same 17.3% margin. These are not narrow victories; they represent a sustained performance lead across every rendering iteration.

The single-core results are more surprising. The Xeon E5-4627 v3, a server chip with a modest 3.20 GHz boost clock, beats the Core i7-11390H, which boosts to 5.00 GHz, in every single-threaded test. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 137 versus 116, an 18.1% lead. R20 single-core shows 571 versus 487, a 17.2% margin. R23 single-core delivers 1361 versus 1160, again 17.3%. The data suggests that raw clock speed alone does not translate into Cinebench single-thread dominance; the older Haswell architecture appears to hold an edge in these specific workloads, or the mobile chip’s power constraints limit its sustained peak.

The overall win tally is 6-0 in favor of the Xeon. The Core i7-11390H does not win a single head-to-head comparison in this dataset. This does not mean the mobile chip is without merit; rather, it indicates that in purely CPU-bound Cinebench rendering, the 10-core Xeon’s parallel throughput and its surprisingly strong single-core showing overwhelm the 4-core Tiger Lake part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most head-to-head benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins all six recorded comparisons. The Core i7-11390H wins zero. The Xeon’s margins range from 17.2% to 18.1% depending on the test.

Q: Is the Core i7-11390H faster in single-core tests due to its higher boost clock?

A: No. Despite a 5.00 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz, the Core i7-11390H loses every single-core test. The Xeon leads by 17.2% to 18.1% in R15, R20, and R23 single-core benchmarks.

Q: How large is the multi-core performance gap?

A: The Xeon leads by 17.3% in all three multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23). The scores are 971 vs 828, 4049 vs 3451, and 9642 vs 8218 respectively.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Xeon E5-4627 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2789, placing it at the 51st percentile of all CPUs. The Core i7-11390H has an average score of 2715, at the 50th percentile.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Xeon’s average score of 2789 is essentially tied with the Intel Core i5-11300H (2792, delta -0.1%) and slightly ahead of the Intel Core i7-5930K (2775, delta 0.5%). The Core i7-11390H’s score of 2715 is exactly matched by the Intel Xeon D-1577 (2715, delta 0%) and is within 0.2% of the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 5650U.

Q: Does the Core i7-11390H have any benchmark that the Xeon lacks?

A: Yes, the Core i7-11390H has Geekbench scores (1985 single-core, 5478 multi-core) recorded in the database. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 has no Geekbench results listed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 is built on Intel’s Haswell-EP architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process node. It is a server and workstation part, designed for sustained throughput in multi-threaded environments. Its die size is 356 mm², containing 2,600 million transistors. This is a large, power-hungry die optimized for many active cores.

In contrast, the Core i7-11390H uses the Tiger Lake-H architecture, built on a 10 nm process. Its die is far smaller at 146.1 mm², and it is designed for mobile laptops where power efficiency and compactness are critical. The transistor count for the Tiger Lake chip is not recorded in the database, but the smaller die and newer node suggest a denser, more power-efficient design.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. The Xeon allocates 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a large 25 MB shared L3 cache. The Core i7-11390H uses larger per-core allocations: 80 KB of L1 and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, but only 12 MB of shared L3. This means the Xeon has over twice the total L3 capacity, which helps when many threads are competing for shared data. The Core i7’s larger per-core L2 is typical of newer architectures that need to feed high clock speeds with lower latency.

Memory support also diverges. Both support DDR4, but the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus with a theoretical bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, while the Core i7 uses a dual-channel bus at 51.2 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core i7. For server workloads where data integrity is paramount, ECC support is a critical differentiator.

PCIe connectivity differs as well. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, while the Core i7 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The newer standard offers higher per-lane bandwidth, but the Xeon provides more total lanes for expansion cards, storage controllers, and multi-GPU configurations.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious divergence. The Xeon E5-4627 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Core i7-11390H has 4 cores and 8 threads. This 2.5x core advantage is the primary reason for the Xeon’s multi-core wins.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Core i7-11390H starts at 2.90 GHz and boosts to 5.00 GHz. The mobile chip has a 1.80 GHz higher boost ceiling, yet it loses single-core tests, as noted in the benchmark section.

Thermal design power (TDP) reflects their intended environments. The Xeon is rated at 135 W, while the Core i7 is rated at 28 W. This is a 107 W difference, highlighting the Xeon’s need for robust cooling and the Core i7’s suitability for thin laptops.

Sockets and packages differ completely. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a large server socket. The Core i7 uses Intel BGA 1449, which is soldered directly to the motherboard. The Xeon’s socket allows for replacement or upgrade, while the BGA package means the Core i7 is effectively permanent.

Integrated graphics are present only on the Core i7, which features Iris XE 96EU. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for any display output.

Memory channels and bandwidth, already covered in architecture, are also specification differences: quad-channel at 68.3 GB/s for the Xeon versus dual-channel at 51.2 GB/s for the Core i7.

Release dates are far apart. The Xeon was released on 2015-05-31, while the Core i7 arrived on 2021-06-20, a gap of over six years. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the Core i7 is active production.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-4627 v3 wins every recorded benchmark, so its victory domain is broad. It excels in multi-threaded rendering tasks, as evidenced by its 17.3% lead in all Cinebench multi-core tests. Its 25 MB shared L3 cache and 20 threads allow it to handle parallel workloads with high efficiency. The quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth further supports data-intensive server tasks. For server or workstation applications that require ECC memory, the Xeon is the only choice between these two.

The Core i7-11390H wins in scenarios not covered by the benchmark suite. Its integrated Iris XE 96EU graphics mean it can power a laptop display without a separate GPU. Its 28 W TDP and BGA 1449 package make it suitable for compact mobile devices. The PCIe Gen 4 support with 20 lanes offers faster per-device bandwidth for modern NVMe storage. Its larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (80 KB and 1.25 MB respectively) could benefit latency-sensitive single-threaded applications, though the Cinebench data does not show this advantage.

In the benchmark database, the Core i7-11390H has Geekbench scores of 1985 single-core and 5478 multi-core. These are not compared to the Xeon because the Xeon lacks Geekbench results. This means the Core i7 has a measurable presence in general-purpose computing benchmarks, while the Xeon’s recorded data is purely Cinebench-based.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-4627 v3 outperforms the Intel Core i7-11390H in every recorded Cinebench test, with margins of 17.2% to 18.1%. The Xeon’s 10 cores and 20 threads provide a decisive multi-core advantage, and its single-core scores are unexpectedly higher despite a much lower boost clock. For any workload represented by Cinebench rendering, the Xeon is the superior processor.

Who should pick the Xeon? Users building a server or workstation where multi-threaded rendering, ECC memory support, and high memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s) are priorities. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for extensive expansion. The Xeon’s 135 W TDP requires a serious cooling solution, but the performance data justifies it for heavy compute tasks. Its launch MSRP was $2225, reflecting its enterprise positioning.

Who should pick the Core i7-11390H? Users needing a mobile processor with integrated graphics, a 28 W TDP, and PCIe Gen 4 support. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock is the highest among the two, and it has a smaller die (146.1 mm²) suitable for compact laptops. It also has Geekbench scores in the database, indicating it is a more general-purpose chip. However, for raw Cinebench performance, the data shows it trails the Xeon by a consistent 17% margin across the board.

The average benchmark scores confirm the overall picture: the Xeon averages 2789 versus the Core i7’s 2715, a difference of 74 points. Both sit near the 50th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are mid-pack in the broader database. But in this direct comparison, the Xeon is the clear winner. The Core i7-11390H’s higher clocks and newer architecture do not translate into benchmark victories in this dataset; the Xeon’s core count and memory subsystem dominate.