Intel Core i9-10885H vs Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 and the Intel Core i9-10885H are two very different processors that end up in the same performance neighborhood. The Xeon is a 12-core, 24-thread Haswell-EP server part from the LGA 2011-3 era, while the i9 is an 8-core, 16-thread Comet Lake-H mobile chip. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the Xeon at 3658 and the i9 at 3651, a difference of only 0.2%. However, the data shows that the Xeon wins every single head-to-head Cinebench test, from R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core runs. This makes for a fascinating comparison between a workstation behemoth with more cores and a laptop chip with a much higher boost clock.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Intel Core i9-10885H has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the performance gap in the latest multi-core benchmark?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 12647, while the i9 scores 12102. This gives the Xeon a 4.5% lead.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare?

A: The Xeon wins every single-core test, including a 4.5% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core, scoring 1785 versus the i9's 1708.

Q: What are the differences in memory architecture?

A: The Xeon uses a quad-channel DDR4 memory bus with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC memory. The i9 uses a dual-channel bus with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth and does not support ECC.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has no integrated graphics. The Core i9-10885H includes Intel UHD Graphics 630.

Q: What is each processor's percentile ranking among all CPUs?

A: The Xeon E5-2658A v3 ranks in the 56th percentile, while the Core i9-10885H ranks in the 55th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is stark. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 is built on Intel's Haswell-EP architecture using a 22 nm process node, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. It belongs to the Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) generation. The Core i9-10885H, in contrast, uses the newer Comet Lake architecture on a 14 nm node, with a smaller die size of 206 mm². This means the Xeon is physically larger and older, but it packs more cores into that space.

The cache configurations differ as well. Both share the same 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 cache per core. However, the Xeon has a massive 30 MB shared L3 cache, while the i9 has only 16 MB. This larger cache pool on the Xeon is typical of server parts designed to handle large working sets.

The memory subsystems are also fundamentally different. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 memory, offering a theoretical bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, and it includes ECC memory support for error correction in critical workloads. The i9 is limited to dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth and has no ECC capability. Additionally, the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i9 offers only 16 lanes. The Xeon is a server/workstation segment chip on Socket 2011-3, whereas the i9 is a mobile part on BGA 1440 with integrated UHD Graphics 630, a feature entirely absent from the Xeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent: the Xeon E5-2658A v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons, but by a narrow margin every time. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1274 against the i9's 1219, a 4.5% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern, with the Xeon at 179 versus 172, also a 4.1% edge.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon continues its sweep. Its multi-core score of 5311 beats the i9's 5082 by 4.5%. In single-core, the Xeon posts 749 versus 717, again a 4.5% lead. The pattern holds in the newest Cinebench R23 test. The Xeon's multi-core score of 12647 outpaces the i9's 12102 by 4.5%, and its single-core score of 1785 beats the i9's 1708 by the same 4.5% margin.

What is most striking is that despite the i9's much higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz compared to the Xeon's 2.90 GHz, the older Xeon still manages to win every single-core test. This suggests that the Xeon's architecture, despite its lower clock speed, delivers comparable or better per-thread performance in these workloads. The multi-core results are less surprising, as the Xeon's 12 cores and 24 threads provide a natural advantage over the i9's 8 cores and 16 threads, even if that advantage is smaller than expected.

Specification Differences

The specification sheet highlights how different these two products are. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has a base clock of 2.20 GHz and a boost clock of 2.90 GHz, while the i9-10885H has a higher base of 2.40 GHz and a much higher boost of 5.30 GHz. The TDP difference is significant: the Xeon draws 105 W, while the i9 is rated at just 45 W, reflecting its mobile design.

The memory bus width differs, with the Xeon using quad-channel and the i9 using dual-channel. This directly impacts memory bandwidth, which is 68.3 GB/s for the Xeon versus 46.9 GB/s for the i9. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but absent on the i9. The PCIe lane count also differs, with the Xeon offering 40 lanes versus the i9's 16 lanes.

The process nodes are different, with the Xeon at 22 nm and the i9 at 14 nm. The die sizes are 356 mm² for the Xeon and 206 mm² for the i9. The Xeon has 2,600 million transistors, while the i9's transistor count is not listed. L3 cache is 30 MB on the Xeon versus 16 MB on the i9. The i9 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has none. Finally, their market segments are entirely different: the Xeon is for server/workstation use, and the i9 is for mobile computing.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2658A v3 wins in every benchmark category that was tested. Its 4.5% lead in multi-core tests like Cinebench R23 can be attributed to its 12 cores and 24 threads, which handle parallel workloads more effectively. Its larger 30 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory bandwidth also make it better suited for memory-intensive server tasks. For workloads that rely on heavy multi-threading, such as rendering, scientific computing, or database processing, the data clearly favors the Xeon.

However, the Core i9-10885H has its own advantages that are not captured in these specific Cinebench tests. Its much lower 45 W TDP makes it suitable for laptop platforms, whereas the Xeon's 105 W TDP requires a desktop or server chassis. The i9's integrated UHD Graphics 630 means it can output video without a discrete GPU, which is impossible with the Xeon. The i9 also has a much higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz, which could benefit workloads not represented in this benchmark suite. Additionally, the i9 supports Geekbench scores (6764 multi-core, 1447 single-core), which are not listed for the Xeon, indicating that the i9 has been tested in a broader range of scenarios.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 outperforms the Intel Core i9-10885H in every Cinebench test, from single-core to multi-core, and across R15, R20, and R23 versions. The Xeon's 4.5% lead in the latest R23 multi-core test (12647 versus 12102) and its similar edge in single-core (1785 versus 1708) make it the faster processor for CPU-bound compute tasks. Its 12 cores, 24 threads, larger 30 MB L3 cache, quad-channel memory, and ECC support are clear advantages for server and workstation workloads that require sustained throughput and data integrity.

Yet, the choice is not simply about raw speed. The i9-10885H is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP, making it the only viable option for a laptop build. It also offers integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The i9's higher boost clock of 5.30 GHz suggests it could be more responsive in lightly threaded applications, even if the Cinebench results do not show that advantage. For a desktop workstation that prioritizes multi-core rendering, the Xeon is the clear winner based on the data. For a mobile user who needs a compact system with acceptable performance and integrated graphics, the i9 is the practical choice. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $1832, and the i9's is $556, but the performance data shows that the older Xeon still holds a slight edge in these benchmarks.