Intel Core i7-8750H vs Intel Xeon 6756E Comparison

The Intel Xeon 6756E and Intel Core i7-8750H represent opposite ends of the computing spectrum: a 128-core server behemoth on a 5 nm node versus a 6-core mobile chip from a 14 nm era. The data shows the Xeon dominates in raw multi-threaded throughput, but the Core i7 wins in several single-threaded and specific workload tests, making this comparison less one-sided than core counts suggest.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon 6756E has 128 cores and 128 threads, while the Intel Core i7-8750H has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon’s core count is over 21 times higher.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon 6756E has an average benchmark score of 14163, while the Core i7-8750H scores 13868. Both processors sit at the 68th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they rank similarly overall despite their different designs.

Q: What are the biggest performance gaps in either direction?

A: The Xeon wins passmark_find_prime_numbers by 392.6% and passmark_data_encryption by 148.2%. The Core i7 wins passmark_single_thread by 27.7% and passmark_extended_instructions by 23.6%.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon 6756E supports ECC memory with DDR5 and an eight-channel memory bus. The Core i7-8750H does not support ECC, uses DDR4, and has no listed memory bus width.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Xeon 6756E is listed as Active, while the Core i7-8750H is End-of-life. The Xeon was released in 2024, and the Core i7 in 2018.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i7-8750H includes Intel UHD 630 integrated graphics. The Xeon 6756E has no integrated graphics (N/A).

Architecture Differences

The Xeon 6756E is built on Intel’s Sierra Forest architecture, a 5 nm process with a die size of 578 mm². It uses a modular cache layout with 96 KB of L1 per core, 4 MB of L2 per module, and 96 MB of shared L3. This is a server-class design with DDR5 memory support, an eight-channel memory bus, and 409.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. It also provides PCIe Gen 5 with 88 lanes from the CPU.

The Core i7-8750H uses the Coffee Lake-H architecture on a 14 nm process with a die size of 149 mm². Its cache hierarchy is simpler: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 12 MB shared L3. It supports DDR4 memory, has no listed memory bandwidth, and lacks PCIe details in the data. The Core i7 includes UHD 630 integrated graphics, while the Xeon does not.

The manufacturing process difference is stark: 5 nm versus 14 nm, which explains how the Xeon fits 128 cores into a die that is only about four times larger in area than the Core i7’s 6-core die. The Xeon’s TDP is 225 watts, while the Core i7 draws 45 watts. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 4710, whereas the Core i7 uses Intel BGA 1440, making them physically incompatible.

Memory support is another major divide. The Xeon’s eight-channel DDR5 and ECC capability are enterprise features. The Core i7’s DDR4 support without ECC reflects its mobile consumer positioning. The Xeon also has a launch MSRP of $8428; the Core i7 has no launch MSRP listed.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon 6756E wins 11 of 17 head-to-head tests, but the margins vary wildly. In Cinebench tests, the Xeon dominates consistently. It leads by 17.5% in R15 multi-core (980 vs 834), 17.9% in R15 single-core (138 vs 117), 17.6% in R20 multi-core (4085 vs 3475), 17.6% in R20 single-core (576 vs 490), 17.6% in R23 multi-core (9728 vs 8274), and 17.6% in R23 single-core (1373 vs 1168). These are uniform wins across both multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering workloads.

The Xeon’s largest victories come in specialized compute tasks. It beats the Core i7 by 392.6% in passmark_find_prime_numbers (133 vs 27), by 148.2% in passmark_data_encryption (8409 vs 3388), and by 142.2% in passmark_physics (1463 vs 604). These are enormous margins, reflecting the Xeon’s ability to leverage its massive core count for parallel integer and physics workloads.

In passmark_multithread, the Xeon wins by 16.8% (11445 vs 9799). The floating-point math test is nearly a tie: the Xeon wins by just 1.2% (22451 vs 22179). That slim margin is surprising given the core count disparity and suggests the Core i7’s higher clock speeds keep it competitive in this specific task.

The Core i7-8750H takes 6 wins, all in passmark tests. Its biggest gain is in passmark_single_thread, where it scores 2276 versus the Xeon’s 1646, a 27.7% advantage. It also wins passmark_extended_instructions by 23.6% (8637 vs 6596) and passmark_random_string_sorting by 14.9% (18622 vs 15847). In passmark_integer_math, the Core i7 leads by 13.5% (35629 vs 30806), and in passmark_data_compression it wins by 11.5% (139418 vs 123443).

The single-thread and extended-instructions wins are notable because the Core i7 boosts to 4.10 GHz versus the Xeon’s 2.60 GHz. That clock advantage matters for latency-sensitive and lightly-threaded code. The data compression result is also interesting — the Core i7’s 139418 score outpaces the Xeon’s 123443 despite the Xeon having far more cores.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear split. The Xeon 6756E is the choice for workloads that scale across many cores: physics simulation, prime number finding, encryption, and multi-threaded rendering. Its 128 cores deliver 142.2% to 392.6% advantages in those areas, and it holds a 16.8% lead in passmark_multithread overall.

The Core i7-8750H is the better pick for single-threaded and latency-sensitive tasks. It wins single-thread performance by 27.7%, extended instructions by 23.6%, and integer math by 13.5%. For a mobile chip, its 4.10 GHz boost clock provides responsiveness that the Xeon cannot match at 2.60 GHz.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical — 14163 for the Xeon versus 13868 for the Core i7 — and both sit at the 68th percentile. This means the two CPUs are roughly equivalent in overall benchmark averages, but they achieve that parity through completely different strengths. The Xeon is a server part with an $8428 launch MSRP, active production, and ECC memory. The Core i7 is an end-of-life mobile processor with integrated graphics and a 45-watt TDP.

Neither chip is a general-purpose winner. The Xeon’s 225-watt TDP and server socket make it unsuitable for laptops, while the Core i7’s 6 cores and BGA socket preclude it from server workloads. The choice depends entirely on the deployment environment and workload profile.

Specification Differences

| Field | Intel Xeon 6756E | Intel Core i7-8750H |

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

| Cores | 128 | 6 |

| Threads | 128 | 12 |

| Base Clock | 1.80 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.60 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 225 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4710 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Sierra Forest | Coffee Lake |

| Process Node | 5 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 578 mm² | 149 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 96 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 4 MB (per module) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 96 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR5 | DDR4 |

| Memory Bus | Eight-channel | Not listed |

| Memory Bandwidth | 409.6 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 5, 88 Lanes (CPU only) | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | N/A | UHD 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

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

| Launch MSRP | $8428 | Not listed |

| Part Number | SRPFX | SR3YY |

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon 6756E wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 across both single-core and multi-core tests, with margins between 17.5% and 17.9%. It also wins passmark_data_encryption (148.2% lead), passmark_find_prime_numbers (392.6% lead), passmark_floating_point_math (1.2% lead), passmark_multithread (16.8% lead), and passmark_physics (142.2% lead). These are the workloads for server rooms: encryption, scientific computing, physics engines, and heavy parallel rendering.

The Core i7-8750H wins passmark_data_compression (11.5% lead), passmark_extended_instructions (23.6% lead), passmark_integer_math (13.5% lead), passmark_random_string_sorting (14.9% lead), and passmark_single_thread (27.7% lead). These wins point to a different use case: general desktop productivity, compression utilities, and code that depends on high clock speeds and strong single-thread performance rather than core count.

The Xeon wins 11 tests, the Core i7 wins 6. But the Core i7’s wins are in categories that matter for everyday responsiveness — single-threaded tasks, compression, and integer math — while the Xeon’s wins are more specialized or heavily parallel. The floating-point math test, where the Xeon wins by just 1.2%, shows that clock speed can nearly compensate for a 21x core disadvantage in some workloads. For anyone choosing between these, the deciding factor is whether the software can use 128 cores or needs the fastest possible single-thread execution.