Intel Core i7-9850HL vs Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though narrow, advantage for the Intel Core i7-9850HL across every Cinebench workload in the comparison. In the six head-to-head tests, the i7-9850HL takes all six wins, with the Xeon E3-1285 v4 trailing by margins between 1.5% and 2.1%. The largest gap appears in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where the i7-9850HL scores 95 against the Xeon’s 93, a 2.1% difference. The smallest edge is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where 397 versus 391 yields a 1.5% gap.

The multicore results follow a similar pattern. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-9850HL posts 676 versus 664, a 1.8% lead. In R20 multicore, the scores are 2819 and 2770, a 1.7% advantage. The R23 multicore test shows 6712 for the i7-9850HL and 6596 for the Xeon, again a 1.7% difference. The single-core R23 test repeats that 1.7% margin, with 947 against 931.

These deltas are small in absolute terms, but they are uniform. No test swings the other direction. The i7-9850HL’s average benchmark score of 1941 places it at the 44th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon E3-1285 v4’s average of 1908 sits at the 43rd percentile. The gap in average score is 33 points, roughly 1.7%. In the nearest rival group for the i7-9850HL, the Intel Core i7-7820HQ scores 1940 (0.1% behind), the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 scores 1945 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5 scores 1947 (0.3% ahead). The i7-9850HL sits right in that cluster, slightly above the i7-7820HQ but marginally below the two Xeons.

For the Xeon E3-1285 v4, its nearest rivals show a different picture. The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 matches it at 1907 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE scores 1910 (0.1% ahead), and the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 also scores 1910 (0.1% ahead). The Intel Xeon E-2314 scores 1911, 0.2% ahead. The Xeon E3-1285 v4 is effectively dead-even with its closest competitors, whereas the i7-9850HL has a slight, though consistent, edge over the Xeon in direct comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and target different segments. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 uses the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-DT, built on a 14 nm process with a die size of 182 mm². It fits the Intel Socket 1150 and ships with 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clock is 3.50 GHz with a boost of 3.80 GHz. The thermal design power is 95 watts. Cache layout includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 6 MB of shared L3. Memory support is DDR3 over a dual-channel bus, with a recorded bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. The chip supports ECC memory, a hallmark of the server/workstation segment. PCIe connectivity is Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. Integrated graphics come as Intel Iris Pro P6300. The part is marked end-of-life, released in June 2015, with a launch MSRP of $556. The part number is SR2CX.

The Intel Core i7-9850HL uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-HR, also on a 14 nm process but with a smaller die at 149 mm². It mounts on Intel BGA 1440 and provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clock is 1900.00 MHz (1.90 GHz) with a boost of 4.10 GHz. The thermal design power is dramatically lower at 25 watts. Cache includes the same 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, but the shared L3 grows to 9 MB. Memory support is DDR4 over dual-channel, with a higher bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. ECC is not supported. PCIe is Gen 3 without a lane count specified in the data. Integrated graphics are UHD Graphics 630. This is a mobile-segment part, also end-of-life, with no release date or launch MSRP recorded. The part number is SRFEH.

The core count difference is the most obvious architectural split: the i7-9850HL has 50% more cores and 50% more threads. Yet the benchmark scores do not reflect that advantage proportionally. The i7-9850HL leads by only 1.7% to 1.8% in multicore tests, despite having six cores versus four. The Xeon’s higher base clock, 3.50 GHz against 1.90 GHz, and its 95-watt TDP allow it to compensate for fewer cores in sustained workloads. The boost clocks tell a different story: the i7-9850HL boosts to 4.10 GHz, which is 0.30 GHz higher than the Xeon’s 3.80 GHz. That higher boost, combined with the newer architecture, likely explains the single-core wins.

Memory bandwidth favors the i7-9850HL at 42.7 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s, a 42.8% advantage. The shared L3 cache also favors the i7-9850HL at 9 MB versus 6 MB, a 50% increase. These factors matter for memory-bound and cache-sensitive workloads, even if the Cinebench scores show only a narrow overall gap.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the benchmark data, the Intel Core i7-9850HL wins every recorded test, but the margins are small. Its strongest advantage is in single-core Cinebench R15, where 95 versus 93 gives a 2.1% lead. In multicore tests, the edge is consistently around 1.7% to 1.8%. The i7-9850HL also has a higher average benchmark score, 1941 against 1908, and sits one percentile point higher in the global distribution. For workloads that rely on single-threaded performance, such as legacy applications or lightly threaded tasks, the i7-9850HL’s higher boost clock and newer architecture provide a measurable, though modest, benefit.

The Xeon E3-1285 v4, despite losing all head-to-head tests, still holds advantages in specific areas. Its base clock is 1.60 GHz higher, which can matter for sustained all-core loads where boost clocks are not sustained. Its 95-watt TDP, though higher, suggests a platform designed for continuous operation in a server or workstation chassis. ECC memory support is a clear differentiator for reliability-sensitive environments. The Xeon also uses a socketed platform, Intel Socket 1150, whereas the i7-9850HL is soldered via BGA 1440, meaning the Xeon can be replaced or upgraded independently of the motherboard.

For use-case splits, the data points to the i7-9850HL for general productivity, single-threaded applications, and any workload where the higher boost clock and larger cache are beneficial. The Xeon E3-1285 v4 makes more sense for scenarios requiring ECC memory, a server-grade feature set, or a socketed CPU for serviceability. The i7-9850HL’s 25-watt TDP also makes it suitable for mobile or low-power embedded designs, while the Xeon’s 95-watt TDP aligns with desktop or rack-mounted systems.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i7-9850HL has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The i7-9850HL has an average benchmark score of 1941, while the Xeon E3-1285 v4 scores 1908, a difference of 33 points in favor of the i7-9850HL.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-9850HL does not.

Q: How do the boost clocks compare?

A: The i7-9850HL boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1285 v4 boosts to 3.80 GHz. The i7-9850HL is 0.30 GHz higher.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Xeon E3-1285 v4 has a TDP of 95 watts. The i7-9850HL has a TDP of 25 watts.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The i7-9850HL has 9 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What memory types do they support?

A: The Xeon E3-1285 v4 supports DDR3 memory. The i7-9850HL supports DDR4 memory.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-9850HL outperforms the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 in every recorded Cinebench test, albeit by narrow margins. Across six tests, the i7-9850HL leads by 1.5% to 2.1%, with the average benchmark score favoring it by 33 points. The i7-9850HL also holds a higher percentile rank, 44th versus 43rd, among all CPUs in the database.

For users prioritizing raw benchmark performance, the i7-9850HL is the clear choice. Its six cores, 12 threads, 9 MB L3 cache, and 4.10 GHz boost clock give it an edge in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads as measured by Cinebench. The higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s further supports memory-intensive tasks. The 25-watt TDP also makes it far more power-efficient, which is critical for mobile or thermally constrained systems.

However, the Xeon E3-1285 v4 is not without merit. Its ECC memory support is a decisive feature for servers and workstations where data integrity is paramount. The socketed design allows for easier maintenance, and the higher base clock of 3.50 GHz may benefit workloads that run at sustained lower utilization rather than short bursts. The Xeon’s 95-watt TDP, while higher, indicates a platform built for continuous operation.

The choice comes down to the use case. If the workload is benchmark-driven, power-sensitive, or benefits from the larger cache and newer architecture, the i7-9850HL is the superior part according to the data. If ECC memory, a socketed CPU, and a server-grade feature set are non-negotiable, the Xeon E3-1285 v4 remains a valid option, even though it loses every direct performance test. The recorded numbers show the i7-9850HL as the faster processor, but the Xeon’s platform attributes may outweigh that for specific enterprise deployments.