Intel Core i7-8559U vs Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 Comparison

Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 and Intel Core i7-8559U sit at nearly the same overall performance level in the database, with average benchmark scores of 2283 and 2225 respectively. The Xeon holds a narrow 2.6% lead in that aggregate, and both processors land in the 47th percentile of all CPUs tracked. That parity is remarkable given how differently the two are built: an eight-core server chip from 2014 against a four-core mobile part from 2018. The head-to-head Cinebench results show the Xeon winning every recorded test, but the margins are consistently around 13%, not a dramatic gap. This comparison is less about raw dominance and more about which platform characteristics matter for a given workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2629 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i7-8559U has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon doubles both counts.

Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two?

A: The Core i7-8559U boosts to 4.50 GHz, while the Xeon E5-2629 v3 boosts to 3.20 GHz. The mobile chip has a 1.30 GHz higher boost clock.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-2629 v3 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Core i7-8559U has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon has 12 MB more.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2629 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-8559U does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The Xeon E5-2629 v3 has a TDP of 85 watts. The Core i7-8559U has a TDP of 28 watts. The mobile chip draws 57 watts less.

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

A: The Xeon E5-2629 v3 won all 6 recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests. The Core i7-8559U won none of them.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different Intel architectures and market segments. The Xeon E5-2629 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, using a 22 nm process node. The Core i7-8559U uses the Kaby Lake architecture, specifically Kaby Lake-R, on a 14 nm process node. The process shrink from 22 nm to 14 nm is significant, allowing the mobile chip to pack its transistors into a 123 mm² die, compared to the Xeon's 356 mm² die. The Xeon's larger die contains 2,600 million transistors, while the database does not list a transistor count for the Core i7.

The core configuration differs sharply. The Xeon offers 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i7 offers 4 cores and 8 threads. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache is 20 MB on the Xeon versus 8 MB on the Core i7. The Xeon's larger cache and higher core count are typical for a server/workstation part, while the Core i7's smaller footprint suits mobile use.

Clock speeds tell a different story. The Xeon has a base clock of 2.40 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Core i7 has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz. The mobile chip's boost advantage of 1.30 GHz is substantial and reflects the newer architecture's ability to reach higher frequencies, even within a 28 watt TDP envelope. The Xeon's TDP is 85 watts, more than three times higher, which allows it to sustain higher core counts and memory bandwidth.

Memory support also diverges. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus, providing 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Core i7 supports only DDR4 memory, and the database does not record a memory bus width or bandwidth figure for it. ECC memory is available on the Xeon but not on the Core i7. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i7's PCIe configuration is not listed. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i7 includes Iris Pro Plus integrated graphics.

The socket and production status also separate them. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Core i7 uses Intel BGA 1356, indicating the Xeon is socketed for server boards while the Core i7 is soldered for mobile systems. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, having been released in September 2014. The Core i7 is marked as active, with an April 2018 release date.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon E5-2629 v3 wins all of them. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 795 against the Core i7's 703, a 13.1% advantage. The R15 single-core test shows the same 13.1% delta, with scores of 112 and 99. This is notable because single-core performance often favors newer architectures with higher boost clocks, yet the Xeon's older Haswell design still edges out the Kaby Lake part here.

In Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 3315 multicore and 467 single-core, while the Core i7 scores 2933 multicore and 414 single-core. The deltas are 13% and 12.8% respectively. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R23, where the Xeon posts 7893 multicore and 1114 single-core, against the Core i7's 6984 and 986. The delta is 13% for both tests.

Every recorded head-to-head benchmark shows the Xeon ahead by roughly 13%, regardless of whether the test is single-threaded or multi-threaded. This consistency is striking because the Core i7 has a significantly higher boost clock, yet it cannot overcome the Xeon's advantages in cache size, core count, and memory bandwidth. The single-core results are particularly instructive: the Xeon's 3.20 GHz boost clock is 1.30 GHz lower than the Core i7's 4.50 GHz, yet the Xeon still wins by 13.1%, 12.8%, and 13% across the three Cinebench versions.

The database also records an average benchmark score for each processor. The Xeon's average is 2283, while the Core i7's is 2225. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-1557 at 2282, the Intel Core i3-10305 at 2264, the Intel Core i5-10400H at 2303, and the Intel Core i7-8809G at 2307. The Core i7-8559U's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5775C at 2224, the Intel Xeon E5-4648 v3 at 2227, the Intel Xeon D-1548 at 2231, and the Intel Xeon D-1715TER at 2238. Both processors sit in the 47th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they perform similarly to a broad range of desktop and mobile parts from their respective eras.

The Verdict

The data points to the Xeon E5-2629 v3 as the stronger performer in every recorded benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests with a consistent 13% margin, and its average benchmark score of 2283 exceeds the Core i7's 2225 by 2.6%. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, the Xeon's 8 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB of L3 cache deliver a clear advantage, even against a newer architecture with a higher boost clock.

The Core i7-8559U is not without merits, but those merits are not visible in the performance data. Its 28 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 85 watts, making it suitable for thin-and-light mobile systems where power draw and heat are primary constraints. Its integrated graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU, which the Xeon cannot do. Its newer 14 nm process and higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz suggest better efficiency per clock, but the recorded benchmarks do not reflect a performance win in any test.

For a server or workstation workload where multi-threaded rendering, ECC memory, and quad-channel bandwidth matter, the Xeon E5-2629 v3 is the clear choice based on the data. For a mobile system where power efficiency and integrated graphics are priorities, the Core i7-8559U fits that role, though it sacrifices performance in every measured Cinebench test. The Xeon's end-of-life status may be a practical concern for procurement, but the Core i7's active status does not translate into a benchmark advantage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every specification category. The Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.40 GHz, its boost clock is 3.20 GHz. The Core i7's base clock is 2.70 GHz, its boost clock is 4.50 GHz. The TDP is 85 watts for the Xeon and 28 watts for the Core i7.

The socket is Intel Socket 2011-3 for the Xeon and Intel BGA 1356 for the Core i7. The architectures are Haswell-EP and Kaby Lake-R respectively. The process node is 22 nm for the Xeon and 14 nm for the Core i7. The Xeon's die size is 356 mm², the Core i7's is 123 mm². The Xeon has 2,600 million transistors; the Core i7's transistor count is not recorded.

L3 cache is 20 MB shared on the Xeon and 8 MB shared on the Core i7. The Xeon supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i7 supports only DDR4, with no memory bus or bandwidth recorded. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon, not on the Core i7. The Xeon has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU; the Core i7's PCIe configuration is not listed. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i7 includes Iris Pro Plus. The market segments are Server/Workstation for the Xeon and Mobile for the Core i7. The Xeon is end-of-life, released in September 2014; the Core i7 is active, released in April 2018.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2629 v3 wins in every recorded performance benchmark. Its 13% lead across all six Cinebench tests indicates that it is better suited for multi-threaded rendering workloads, such as video encoding, 3D rendering, and scientific computation. The larger L3 cache and quad-channel memory bandwidth support data-heavy server tasks. The ECC memory capability makes it appropriate for environments where data integrity is critical, such as database servers or financial modeling. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for substantial expansion with storage controllers, network cards, or GPUs, which is typical for workstation builds.

The Core i7-8559U wins in areas that the database does not benchmark directly but that are evident from its specifications. Its 28 watt TDP makes it a fit for laptops and compact systems where power draw and thermal output are tightly constrained. Its integrated Iris Pro Plus graphics provide a complete display solution without needing a discrete GPU, which is essential for thin mobile devices. The higher boost clock of 4.50 GHz suggests that lightly threaded tasks with short bursts could see responsive performance, though the recorded single-core Cinebench scores do not confirm an advantage over the Xeon. Its active production status and newer release date imply ongoing availability and support.

The use-case split follows the market segments. The Xeon targets servers and workstations where sustained multi-core throughput, memory capacity, and reliability features are paramount. The Core i7 targets mobile systems where portability, battery life, and integrated graphics take precedence. In pure benchmark terms, the Xeon is ahead in every test, but the Core i7's platform advantages in power and integration make it the appropriate choice for a different class of hardware. The data does not show a scenario where the Core i7 outperforms the Xeon, so the decision rests on platform requirements rather than measured performance.