Intel Core i7-9850HL vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 and the Intel Core i7-9850HL are both six-core, twelve-thread processors, but they are engineered for entirely different environments. The Xeon targets server and workstation platforms with a high-power envelope, while the Core i7 is a low-power mobile part. Benchmark data from the database shows that the newer mobile chip consistently edges out the older server chip across the board, though the margins are surprisingly tight given their different design philosophies.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i7-9850HL wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the victories are narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 676 against the Xeon’s 664, a delta of -1.8% from the Xeon’s perspective. Single-core in R15 shows the same trend: the i7 posts 95 versus 93, a 2.1% gap. These are not decisive wins, but they are consistent.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The i7-9850HL scores 2819 in multi-core, while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 manages 2769, a 1.8% difference. In single-core, the i7’s 397 beats the Xeon’s 391 by 1.5%. The most recent test, Cinebench R23, shows the i7 at 6712 multi-core versus the Xeon’s 6595, and 947 single-core versus 931, both ending with a 1.7% delta. The data indicates that the i7 is the faster part in every measured workload, but the Xeon is never far behind.

The average benchmark score tells a similar story. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 has an average score of 1907, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. The i7-9850HL averages 1941, which puts it in the 44th percentile. The difference in average score is just 34 points. The i7’s nearest rival in the database is the Intel Core i7-7820HQ with an average score of 1940, a 0.1% delta, while the Xeon’s closest competitor is the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 at 1908, showing a 0% delta. These figures suggest both processors are firmly mid-pack, with the i7 holding a slight overall advantage.

Where Each One Wins

Looking strictly at the benchmark results, the Core i7-9850HL wins every single test, so it is the faster chip for raw compute in both single-threaded and multi-threaded scenarios. The largest margin it achieves is 2.1% in Cinebench R15 single-core, and the smallest is 1.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core. For any user running Cinebench-style workloads, the i7 is the better choice, but the advantage is small enough that it may not be perceptible in real-world use.

The Xeon E5-2620 v3 does not win any benchmark, but it should not be dismissed. Its strengths lie outside the Cinebench suite. The data shows it supports quad-channel memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the i7 is limited to dual-channel at 42.7 GB/s. That is a substantial memory bandwidth advantage for the Xeon, which matters in memory-intensive server tasks that are not captured by these particular tests. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not, making it the more reliable choice for error-sensitive workloads. Additionally, the Xeon offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, whereas the i7’s PCIe configuration is simply listed as Gen 3 without a lane count, implying fewer lanes for expansion.

The i7-9850HL, on the other hand, brings integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 630, which the Xeon lacks entirely. This makes the i7 a more self-contained solution for mobile systems where a discrete GPU is not always present. The i7 also has a significantly higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz, which explains its single-core wins despite a much lower base clock.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel generations and manufacturing nodes. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 is based on the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, and is built on a 22 nm process. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. The i7-9850HL uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-HR, and is manufactured on a 14 nm process. It is soldered to the Intel BGA 1440 socket, which is a mobile-only package.

Die size and transistor counts differ dramatically. The Xeon has a die size of 356 mm² and contains 2,600 million transistors. The i7’s die is much smaller at 149 mm², and the database does not list a transistor count for it. This reflects the server chip’s larger, more complex design with more memory channels and PCIe lanes, versus the mobile chip’s compact, power-efficient layout.

Cache configurations are similar in structure but different in capacity. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs: the Xeon has 15 MB shared, while the i7 has 9 MB shared. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache is typical for server parts, though it does not translate into a benchmark win in this comparison. Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the Xeon runs quad-channel while the i7 runs dual-channel. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. The i7 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

Power consumption is another major split. The Xeon has a TDP of 85 watts, while the i7 is rated at just 25 watts. This is a massive difference in thermal design, making the i7 far more suitable for laptops and compact systems. The Xeon’s higher power budget allows for the larger cache and memory infrastructure, but the i7’s efficiency is a clear advantage in mobile contexts.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Core i7-9850HL wins all multi-core tests. It scores 676 in Cinebench R15, 2819 in R20, and 6712 in R23, compared to the Xeon’s 664, 2769, and 6595 respectively. The margins are between 1.7% and 1.8%.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-2620 v3 have any advantage in memory performance?

A: Yes. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the i7-9850HL is dual-channel with 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not.

Q: Can the i7-9850HL be used in a desktop motherboard?

A: The i7-9850HL uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, which is a mobile package. It is not designed for standard desktop sockets. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, which is server and workstation oriented.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock?

A: The i7-9850HL boosts to 4.10 GHz, while the Xeon E5-2620 v3 boosts to 3.20 GHz. The i7’s base clock is 1900.00 MHz, which is lower than the Xeon’s 2.40 GHz base.

Q: Is there a significant difference in power consumption?

A: Yes. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 has a TDP of 85 watts, while the i7-9850HL has a TDP of 25 watts. That is a 60-watt difference, making the i7 far more efficient.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the i7-9850HL has integrated graphics, specifically UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics unit.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 | Intel Core i7-9850HL |

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

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 1900.00 MHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 4.10 GHz |

| TDP | 85 W | 25 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| Architecture | Haswell (Haswell-EP) | Coffee Lake (Coffee Lake-HR) |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 149 mm² |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | Not listed |

| L3 Cache | 15 MB (shared) | 9 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 42.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 630 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $417 | Not listed |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Core i7-9850HL in raw compute performance. It wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, with single-core advantages of up to 2.1% and multi-core advantages around 1.8%. Its higher boost clock of 4.10 GHz and newer 14 nm architecture give it the edge in Cinebench tests, despite having a much lower base clock and less L3 cache than the Xeon.

However, the Xeon E5-2620 v3 is not obsolete. It offers quad-channel memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, features that are absent from the i7. For a server or workstation handling memory-heavy, error-critical workloads, the Xeon’s platform capabilities outweigh its slight compute deficit. The i7’s 25-watt TDP and integrated graphics make it the obvious choice for mobile or compact systems where power efficiency and self-contained operation matter more than raw memory bandwidth.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the split: the i7 sits at 1941 versus the Xeon’s 1907, a 34-point difference that puts them in adjacent percentiles (44th versus 43rd). Neither chip is a performance champion, but both are solid six-core options. Pick the i7 for general compute, portability, and lower power draw. Pick the Xeon if you need ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or a large number of PCIe lanes for expansion. The benchmark results show the i7 is faster, but the Xeon is built for a different job.