Intel Core i9-11900KB vs Intel Xeon W-1290P Comparison

The Intel Core i9-11900KB and Intel Xeon W-1290P are two very different Intel processors that end up in a surprisingly close fight. The i9-11900KB is a mobile Tiger Lake-H part, while the Xeon W-1290P is a Comet Lake workstation chip, yet their benchmark scores are nearly identical. The data suggests a tight competition where architectural choices and platform features matter more than raw performance differences.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably one-sided in favor of the Intel Core i9-11900KB, which wins all six head-to-head comparisons. The margins are consistent but narrow, hovering around 1.5-1.7% in every test. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i9-11900KB scores 1946 against the Xeon W-1290P’s 1915, a 1.6% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar story: 274 versus 270, a 1.5% win for the i9.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds. The i9-11900KB posts 8112 in multicore versus 7983 for the Xeon, another 1.6% edge. The single-core R20 result is 1145 against 1126, a 1.7% margin—the largest gap in any benchmark. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 19316 for the i9 and 19008 for the Xeon, with the same 1.6% delta. The R23 single-core test rounds out the sweep: 2727 versus 2683, again 1.6%.

What does this mean? The i9-11900KB is consistently ahead, but never by a commanding amount. A 1.6% margin in Cinebench R23 multicore is within run-to-run variance territory for many workloads, yet the fact that the i9 wins every single test suggests a real, if modest, performance advantage. The Xeon W-1290P does have an additional benchmark result—Geekbench multicore at 8852 and single-core at 1703—but no head-to-head comparison exists for that test, so it cannot be directly weighed against the i9 here.

The average benchmark scores reflect a similar picture. The i9-11900KB has an average score of 5587, placing it in the 61st percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon W-1290P averages 5443, sitting in the 60th percentile. That 2.6% difference in average score aligns with the consistent Cinebench wins. Interestingly, the i9’s nearest rivals include the Intel Atom x7433RE (5601, -0.2% delta) and Intel Core i7-12700T (5606, -0.3%), while the Xeon’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen Threadripper 1920 (5425, +0.3%). Both chips are clustered in a tight performance band, but the i9 edges ahead.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural lineages, which explains why their performance is so close despite different core counts. The i9-11900KB uses the Tiger Lake architecture on a 10 nm process node, with a die size of 190 mm². It packs 8 cores and 16 threads, with a base clock of 3.30 GHz and a boost clock of 5.30 GHz. The Xeon W-1290P is built on Comet Lake, also on a 10 nm node, but with a larger 206 mm² die. It offers 10 cores and 20 threads, with a higher base clock of 3.70 GHz and the same 5.30 GHz boost.

The cache layouts diverge significantly. The i9-11900KB has 80 KB of L1 cache per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 24 MB of shared L3. The Xeon W-1290P has smaller per-core caches: 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2, with 20 MB of shared L3. This means the i9 has substantially more L2 cache per core—five times more—which can benefit latency-sensitive workloads. The Xeon compensates with two additional cores and a 0.40 GHz higher base clock.

Memory support is another differentiator. Both support DDR4 in dual-channel configuration, but the i9-11900KB has a higher memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s versus 46.9 GB/s for the Xeon. The i9 also uses PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Xeon is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes. That is a major platform advantage for the i9, enabling faster storage and GPU connectivity. The Xeon counters with ECC memory support, which the i9 lacks.

The integrated graphics differ as well: the i9 features UHD Graphics 750, while the Xeon has UHD Graphics P630. Both are integrated solutions, but the Tiger Lake iGPU is generally more capable. The socket situation is telling—the i9 uses Intel BGA 1787 (a mobile package), while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200, a desktop workstation platform. The Xeon is listed as market segment "Mobile" in the data, which is unusual for a Socket 1200 part, but the production status shows it as Active while the i9 is End-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-11900KB wins across the board in Cinebench testing, so its strengths are clear. It is faster in every measured workload, from single-core to multi-core. The 1.6-1.7% margins are consistent, suggesting the i9’s architectural advantages—more L2 cache, higher memory bandwidth, PCIe Gen 4—translate into a slight but universal performance lead. For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the i9 is the better choice, even with two fewer cores.

The Xeon W-1290P’s wins are not in raw performance but in platform capabilities. Its 10 cores and 20 threads offer more parallelism potential in workloads that scale beyond 8 cores, even if the Cinebench results do not show it. The ECC memory support is a critical feature for data integrity in workstations handling financial or scientific computations. The higher base clock of 3.70 GHz could benefit lightly threaded tasks that do not hit boost frequencies, though the single-core benchmarks show the i9 still wins.

The Xeon also has the advantage of being an Active production part, while the i9-11900KB is End-of-life. For system builders looking at long-term availability, the Xeon is the safer procurement choice. The Xeon’s socket (Socket 1200) is a standard desktop platform, whereas the i9’s BGA 1787 is a soldered mobile package, limiting its upgradeability and cooling options.

The Verdict

The data points to the Intel Core i9-11900KB as the faster processor in benchmark terms. It wins all six head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score (5587 versus 5443), and sits one percentile higher (61st versus 60th). If pure Cinebench performance is the only criterion, the i9-11900KB is the winner.

However, the Xeon W-1290P is not without reasons for selection. Its ECC memory support is a decisive feature for reliability-critical applications. Its 10-core configuration offers more threads for parallel workloads, even if the Cinebench results do not reflect a win. The Active production status and standard Socket 1200 platform make it a more practical choice for ongoing system design and maintenance.

The i9-11900KB is the choice for users who want maximum benchmark performance in a compact mobile form factor and can work within its BGA package constraints. The Xeon W-1290P is the choice for users who prioritize ECC memory, core count, and platform longevity over the marginal benchmark lead of the i9. The 1.6% performance difference is small enough that other factors will likely determine the purchase decision.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher Cinebench R23 multicore score?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB scores 19316, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P scores 19008, a 1.6% difference in favor of the i9.

Q: Does the Intel Xeon W-1290P support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon W-1290P has ECC memory support, while the Intel Core i9-11900KB does not.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P has 10 cores and 20 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each chip?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB has an average benchmark score of 5587, and the Intel Xeon W-1290P has an average of 5443.

Q: Which processor uses PCIe Gen 4?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB supports PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P is limited to PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Q: What is the production status of each processor?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB is End-of-life, while the Intel Xeon W-1290P is listed as Active.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i9-11900KB | Intel Xeon W-1290P |

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

| Cores | 8 | 10 |

| Threads | 16 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 125 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1787 | Intel Socket 1200 |

| Architecture | Tiger Lake | Comet Lake |

| Die Size | 190 mm² | 206 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 80 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 1.25 MB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 24 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 51.2 GB/s | 46.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 4, 20 Lanes | Gen 3, 16 Lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 750 | UHD Graphics P630 |

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

| Multiplier Unlocked | Yes | No |

| Part Number | SRKU4 | SRKT7 |