Intel Core i7-8705G vs Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-8705G and the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 represent two distinct interpretations of a similar idea: a four-core, eight-thread processor built on Intel’s 14 nm process. The i7-8705G is a mobile part, designed to be soldered onto a motherboard with the BGA 2270 socket, while the Xeon E3-1280 v5 is a server and workstation chip that drops into the standard Socket 1151. Despite their shared core count and manufacturing node, the benchmark data shows a consistent performance gap, with the Xeon taking every recorded head-to-head test. The following analysis breaks down exactly where each processor stands, what the architecture differences mean, and who should consider which chip.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 wins all six benchmark comparisons against the Intel Core i7-8705G. The margin is remarkably consistent across both multi-core and single-core workloads, hovering just below 8 percent in nearly every test. This uniformity suggests that the difference is not workload-specific but rather a fundamental clock speed advantage that scales evenly across the board.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 707 points against the i7-8705G’s 651 points, a difference of 7.9 percent. The single-core test in the same benchmark shows a similar story: 99 points for the Xeon versus 91 points for the i7-8705G, an 8.1 percent gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 2946 in multi-core and 415 in single-core, while the i7-8705G manages 2714 and 383, respectively. The deltas here are 7.9 percent and 7.7 percent.

Cinebench R23, which is often the most demanding of the three rendering workloads, shows the same pattern. The Xeon reaches 7015 in multi-core, the i7-8705G scores 6464, a 7.9 percent difference. In single-core R23, the Xeon records 990 versus 912, again a 7.9 percent gap. The consistency of these numbers points to a straightforward conclusion: the Xeon E3-1280 v5 is faster in every measured rendering scenario, and the margin is stable enough to be considered a structural advantage rather than a test anomaly.

The Geekbench results for the i7-8705G, which are present in the database, show a multi-core score of 3968 and a single-core score of 1277. The Xeon does not have corresponding Geekbench entries in the recorded data, so a direct comparison in that suite is not possible. However, the Cinebench results alone establish a clear hierarchy. The average benchmark score for the i7-8705G is 2058, placing it at the 46th percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Xeon’s average is 2029, which puts it at the 45th percentile. These percentile figures are close, but they reflect the broader database, where the Xeon’s higher absolute scores in the shared tests are offset by the lack of Geekbench data.

The nearest rivals for the i7-8705G reinforce its position. The Intel Core i3-10105T matches its average score exactly at 2058, while the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G scores 2059, a 0.1 percent difference, and the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 scores 2055, a 0.2 percent difference. The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5, a similar server part, scores 2067, putting it 0.4 percent ahead. For the Xeon E3-1280 v5, the nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E3-1260L v5 with an identical average score of 2029. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 scores 2030, a 0.1 percent difference, and the Intel Core i7-5775R also scores 2031, a 0.1 percent difference.

Where Each One Wins

Given the head-to-head sweep, the Xeon E3-1280 v5 is the clear winner in raw computational throughput. Its higher base clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the i7-8705G’s 3.10 GHz, and its boost clock of 4.00 GHz against 4.10 GHz, mean that in most sustained workloads the Xeon maintains a lead. The boost clock advantage of the i7-8705G is real but slight, and the data suggests it does not translate into a win in any recorded benchmark.

The Xeon’s wins are most pronounced in multi-threaded rendering. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests all show the Xeon ahead by roughly 7.9 percent. This is the kind of workload where a processor’s ability to sustain high clocks across all cores matters, and the Xeon’s 3.70 GHz base clock gives it a solid foundation. The i7-8705G, with a lower base clock, has to rely on boost behavior, which is more variable in a mobile context.

Single-core performance also belongs to the Xeon. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 99 against 91, and in R20 single-core, it scores 415 against 383. The R23 single-core result, 990 versus 912, is the largest single-core margin in absolute terms. For users who run lightly threaded applications, such as older games or single-threaded productivity tools, the Xeon is the stronger choice.

The i7-8705G does have areas where it is not at a disadvantage, even if it does not win the benchmark comparisons. Its integrated Intel HD Graphics 630 provides a display output and basic graphics acceleration, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. This makes the i7-8705G a more self-contained package for a mobile or compact system, where a discrete GPU might not always be present. The Xeon, by contrast, requires a separate graphics card for any display output.

The power envelope also favors the i7-8705G. With a TDP of 65 watts, it is rated 15 watts lower than the Xeon’s 80 watts. In a thermal-constrained environment, such as a thin laptop or a compact all-in-one, that lower TDP is a meaningful advantage, even if it comes with a corresponding reduction in peak performance. The Xeon’s higher TDP is part of the reason it can sustain its higher base clock, but it also demands more from the cooling solution.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 14 nm process, but they come from different architecture families. The i7-8705G uses the Kaby Lake architecture, specifically the Kaby Lake G codename, and belongs to the Core i7 generation. The Xeon E3-1280 v5 uses the Skylake architecture with the Skylake-DT codename, and belongs to the Xeon E3 generation. These are closely related designs, which explains the similar performance characteristics, but they are not identical.

The core configuration is the same on paper: 4 cores and 8 threads for both processors. The cache hierarchy is also identical in structure, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the architectural differences do not show up in cache capacity or core count, but rather in clock speeds and platform features.

The process node is the same 14 nm, though the die sizes differ slightly. The i7-8705G has a die size of 125 mm², while the Xeon E3-1280 v5 has a die size of 122 mm². The Xeon also has a listed transistor count of 1,750 million, while the i7-8705G does not have a transistor count recorded in the database. These physical differences are minor and do not appear to have a direct impact on the benchmark results.

The sockets are completely different. The i7-8705G uses Intel BGA 2270, which is a ball-grid array socket meant for soldered, non-upgradeable mobile installations. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, a land-grid array socket that allows for easier installation and replacement in a desktop or workstation motherboard. This is a fundamental platform distinction: one is a mobile processor soldered to the board, the other is a socketed server and workstation chip.

Memory support also differs. Both support DDR4 memory with a dual-channel memory bus, but the i7-8705G has a recorded memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon’s memory bandwidth is not listed in the database. The i7-8705G does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon does. ECC support is a significant feature for server and workstation workloads where data integrity is critical, and it is one of the key reasons a user might choose the Xeon despite its higher power draw.

PCIe connectivity is another point of divergence. The i7-8705G provides PCIe Gen 3 with 8 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. This means the Xeon can support more directly connected PCIe devices, such as multiple GPUs or high-speed storage controllers, before needing additional switching hardware. For a workstation with expansion needs, the Xeon’s 16 lanes are a clear advantage.

The i7-8705G includes integrated Intel HD Graphics 630, which is absent from the Xeon. This makes the i7-8705G a more versatile mobile part, capable of driving a display without a discrete GPU. The Xeon, as a server and workstation processor, omits integrated graphics entirely, assuming that a dedicated GPU will be present in any serious build.

The release dates are separated by more than two years. The Xeon E3-1280 v5 was released in October 2015, while the i7-8705G was released in January 2018. Both are now end-of-life products, but the Xeon is the older design. The launch MSRP for the Xeon was $612, which is recorded in the database. The i7-8705G has no recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 is faster in every recorded multi-core test. In Cinebench R15, it scores 707 versus 651. In R20, it scores 2946 versus 2714. In R23, it scores 7015 versus 6464. The margin is consistently around 7.9 percent.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-8705G have an advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1280 v5 wins all three single-core Cinebench tests. It scores 99 versus 91 in R15, 415 versus 383 in R20, and 990 versus 912 in R23.

Q: What is the difference in power consumption between the two?

A: The i7-8705G has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Xeon E3-1280 v5 has a TDP of 80 watts. The i7-8705G uses 15 watts less, which can be important in thermally constrained mobile systems.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E3-1280 v5 supports ECC memory. The i7-8705G does not support ECC memory. This makes the Xeon more suitable for server and workstation workloads where data integrity is critical.

Q: Are the processors on the same socket?

A: No. The i7-8705G uses Intel BGA 2270, a soldered mobile socket. The Xeon E3-1280 v5 uses Intel Socket 1151, a socketed desktop and workstation interface.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-8705G has an average benchmark score of 2058, placing it at the 46th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon E3-1280 v5 has an average score of 2029, placing it at the 45th percentile.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive. The Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 outperforms the Intel Core i7-8705G in every recorded head-to-head test, with margins that hover around 8 percent in both single-core and multi-core workloads. For anyone who prioritizes raw CPU performance, the Xeon is the stronger choice. Its higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and its ability to sustain performance across all cores makes it a better fit for rendering, compilation, and other compute-heavy tasks. The Xeon also brings ECC memory support and 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, both of which are meaningful for server and workstation use cases.

The i7-8705G is not without its merits, but its strengths lie outside the pure performance metrics. Its 65 watt TDP makes it a more power-efficient option, and its integrated Intel HD Graphics 630 means it can function without a discrete GPU. These features point toward a mobile or compact system where space and cooling are limited. Its higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz does not translate into benchmark wins, but it does suggest that the chip can reach competitive speeds in short bursts when thermal headroom allows.

The choice between these two processors comes down to platform and use case. The Xeon E3-1280 v5 is a socketed, server-grade part with ECC support, more PCIe lanes, and superior benchmark scores. It is the right pick for a workstation or server build where performance and reliability are paramount. The i7-8705G is a soldered mobile part with lower power draw and integrated graphics. It is the right pick for a compact, power-conscious mobile system where the absence of a discrete GPU is a requirement. The data does not suggest that the i7-8705G can match the Xeon in computational throughput, but it does occupy a distinct niche where its platform features matter more than raw scores.