Intel Core i9-10900 vs Intel Xeon E-2386G Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2386G and the Intel Core i9-10900 are both Socket 1200 processors, but they target different market segments. The Xeon E-2386G is a Server/Workstation part from the Xeon E-2300 series, while the Core i9-10900 is a Desktop part from the Core 10th Gen series. The recorded head-to-head data shows a complete sweep for the Xeon across all six Cinebench tests, despite the Core i9 offering more cores and threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison consists of six Cinebench tests, and the Intel Xeon E-2386G wins all of them. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 1672 against the Core i9's 1634, a 2.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 235 versus 230, a 2.2% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 6968 in multicore and 983 in single-core, while the Core i9 scores 6811 and 961 respectively. Both R20 deltas are 2.3% in favor of the Xeon. The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend: the Xeon posts 16592 in multicore and 2342 in single-core, against the Core i9's 16219 and 2289. The delta remains at 2.3% for both R23 tests.

The consistency of the 2.3% delta across most tests indicates a stable per-clock performance advantage for the Xeon, despite the Core i9 having a higher boost clock of 5.20 GHz compared to 5.10 GHz. The Core i9 does have additional benchmark records in the database, such as 3DMark and Geekbench, but those are not part of the head-to-head set. Within the measured head-to-head suite, the Xeon E-2386G holds a perfect 6 to 0 win record.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the recorded head-to-head data, the Intel Xeon E-2386G is the faster processor. It wins every Cinebench test, and its average benchmark score of 4799 is higher than the Core i9-10900's 4614. The Xeon's average score places it 0.2% behind the AMD Ryzen 9 3950X, while the Core i9's average is 0.8% behind the Intel Core i9-9900KF. The Xeon also holds a higher percentile ranking at 59, compared to the Core i9's 58.

For users prioritizing raw single-thread and multi-thread performance in the Cinebench suite, the Xeon is the clear choice. The Core i9-10900, however, offers a lower TDP of 65 watts against the Xeon's 95 watts, and it has more cores and threads. The Core i9 is also end-of-life, while the Xeon remains active. The Xeon E-2386G carries a launch MSRP of $450, while the Core i9-10900 carries a launch MSRP of $483. The data suggests that the Xeon provides superior benchmark performance in the tested workloads, along with a lower launch MSRP.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 14 nm process node, but they use different architectures. The Xeon E-2386G is based on Rocket Lake, specifically the Rocket Lake-E codename, while the Core i9-10900 uses Comet Lake. The Xeon has 6 cores and 12 threads, whereas the Core i9 has 10 cores and 20 threads. The cache hierarchy differs significantly. The Xeon has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 512 KB of L2 cache per core, while the Core i9 has 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache is larger on the Core i9 at 20 MB, compared to the Xeon's 12 MB.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, but the Xeon has a higher memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the Core i9 does not. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Core i9 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The integrated graphics are different as well: the Xeon uses UHD Graphics P750, and the Core i9 uses UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon has a die size of 276 mm², while the Core i9's die size is not specified in the database. The Xeon is classified as a Server/Workstation part, while the Core i9 is a Desktop part. The Xeon was released on 2021-09-07, and the Core i9 was released on 2020-04-29. The Xeon's part number is SRKN0, and the Core i9's is SRH8Z.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Core i9-10900 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Xeon E-2386G has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Does the Xeon E-2386G support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E-2386G supports ECC memory, whereas the Core i9-10900 does not.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Xeon E-2386G has a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the Core i9-10900 has a memory bandwidth of 46.9 GB/s.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i9-10900 has a boost clock of 5.20 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon E-2386G's boost clock of 5.10 GHz.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Xeon E-2386G is listed as Active, while the Core i9-10900 is listed as End-of-life.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Core i9-10900 has a shared L3 cache of 20 MB, while the Xeon E-2386G has a shared L3 cache of 12 MB.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E-2386G wins in all six head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks. It also wins on memory bandwidth (51.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s), PCIe generation (Gen 4 vs Gen 3), and lane count (20 vs 16). It supports ECC memory, which the Core i9 does not. It has a higher average benchmark score (4799 vs 4614) and a higher percentile ranking (59 vs 58). It is also an active product, whereas the Core i9 is end-of-life. The Xeon also has a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz compared to the Core i9's 2.80 GHz, and it has larger L1 and L2 caches per core.

The Core i9-10900 wins on core count (10 vs 6), thread count (20 vs 12), and boost clock (5.20 GHz vs 5.10 GHz). It has a lower TDP of 65 watts, which is advantageous for power-constrained systems. It also has a larger shared L3 cache of 20 MB versus 12 MB. The Core i9 has additional recorded benchmark scores in 3DMark and Geekbench, though these are not part of the head-to-head comparison. For workloads that scale heavily with core count and thread count, the Core i9's 10 cores and 20 threads provide a structural advantage, even if the Cinebench results do not reflect a win.

Specification Differences

• Cores: 6 (Xeon) vs 10 (Core i9)
• Threads: 12 vs 20
• Base Clock: 3.50 GHz vs 2.80 GHz
• Boost Clock: 5.10 GHz vs 5.20 GHz
• TDP: 95 W vs 65 W
• L1 Cache: 80 KB per core vs 64 KB per core
• L2 Cache: 512 KB per core vs 256 KB per core
• L3 Cache: 12 MB shared vs 20 MB shared
• Memory Bandwidth: 51.2 GB/s vs 46.9 GB/s
• ECC Memory: Yes vs No
• PCIe: Gen 4, 20 Lanes vs Gen 3, 16 Lanes
• Integrated Graphics: UHD Graphics P750 vs UHD Graphics 630
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation vs Desktop
• Production Status: Active vs End-of-life
• Release Date: 2021-09-07 vs 2020-04-29
• Launch MSRP: $450 vs $483
• Part Number: SRKN0 vs SRH8Z
• Die Size: 276 mm² vs Not specified
• Average Benchmark Score: 4799 vs 4614
• Percentile: 59 vs 58