Intel Core i9-11900KB vs Intel Xeon W-2175 Comparison

Intel Xeon W-2175 and Intel Core i9-11900KB represent two very different Intel designs, and the benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the older workstation part. Across six Cinebench tests, the Xeon W-2175 wins every single round, with margins between 3.2% and 3.3%. However, both processors land at the 61st percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are within 3.3% of each other, indicating that despite architectural differences, they occupy a similar performance tier in the database.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental split between these two chips is generation and design philosophy. The Intel Xeon W-2175 is built on the Skylake-W architecture using Intel's 14 nm process, with a die size of 484 mm². It is a server and workstation part, released in 2017, and is now end-of-life. The Intel Core i9-11900KB uses the Tiger Lake-H architecture on Intel's 10 nm process, with a much smaller die size of 190 mm². It belongs to the Core 11th Gen family and targets the mobile segment, also end-of-life.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The Xeon W-2175 provides 14 cores and 28 threads, while the i9-11900KB offers 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, whereas the i9 starts at 3.30 GHz and boosts to 5.30 GHz. This makes the i9 significantly faster on a per-clock basis, but the Xeon compensates with 75% more cores and 75% more threads.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. The Xeon W-2175 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 1 MB of L2 per core, and 19.25 MB of shared L3. The i9-11900KB has 80 KB of L1 per core, 1.25 MB of L2 per core, and 24 MB of shared L3. So the i9 has more cache per core and a larger total L3 pool, which helps its single-threaded performance.

Memory support shows a clear workstation vs mobile distinction. The Xeon W-2175 uses quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 85.3 GB/s and supports ECC memory. The i9-11900KB uses dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support. The Xeon also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 48 lanes, while the i9 provides PCIe Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The i9 includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon has a locked multiplier, while the i9 is multiplier unlocked.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W-2175 has 14 cores and 28 threads, compared to the Intel Core i9-11900KB's 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: What is the difference in boost clock speeds?

A: The i9-11900KB boosts to 5.30 GHz, which is 1.00 GHz higher than the Xeon W-2175's 4.30 GHz boost clock. The i9 also has a higher base clock at 3.30 GHz versus 2.50 GHz.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W-2175 supports ECC memory. The i9-11900KB does not have ECC support.

Q: How do their memory bandwidth figures compare?

A: The Xeon W-2175 provides 85.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth with a quad-channel bus, while the i9-11900KB provides 51.2 GB/s with a dual-channel bus. That is a 66.6% advantage for the Xeon.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i9-11900KB includes UHD Graphics 750, while the Intel Xeon W-2175 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No, both are end-of-life. The Xeon W-2175 was released in 2017, and the i9-11900KB has no recorded release date in the database.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, overall winner: the Intel Xeon W-2175. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks, with deltas ranging from 3.2% to 3.3% in its favor. Its average benchmark score is 5770, against the i9-11900KB's 5587, a difference of 3.3%. If the choice is purely about raw multi-threaded and single-threaded throughput as measured by Cinebench, the Xeon W-2175 is the pick.

However, context matters. The Xeon W-2175 achieves this with 14 cores, 28 threads, a 140 W TDP, and a quad-channel memory bus. The i9-11900KB does nearly the same work with only 8 cores, 16 threads, a 65 W TDP, and a dual-channel bus. The i9 is far more efficient per watt and per core. The i9 also has a higher boost clock, larger L3 cache, and PCIe Gen 4 support, which are not captured in Cinebench scores.

Who should pick which? Users who need maximum multi-threaded performance for workstation workloads, ECC memory support, and quad-channel bandwidth should choose the Xeon W-2175. Users who need a compact, mobile-capable part with integrated graphics, a higher clock speed, and a much lower TDP should choose the i9-11900KB. The Xeon wins on raw performance; the i9 wins on efficiency and modern features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Intel Xeon W-2175 dominates the head-to-head results, winning all six tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2010 versus the i9's 1946, a 3.3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows 283 versus 274, also a 3.3% lead. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20: multi-core scores are 8379 for the Xeon and 8112 for the i9, a 3.3% difference, while single-core scores are 1182 and 1145, a 3.2% lead.

In Cinebench R23, the margins remain consistent. Multi-core results show the Xeon at 19951 and the i9 at 19316, a 3.3% gap. Single-core results show 2816 versus 2727, again a 3.3% difference. Notably, the Xeon's largest single win is in R20 multi-core, where it leads by 267 points. Its smallest win is in R20 single-core, with a 37-point margin.

The consistency of the 3.3% delta across all tests suggests a systematic advantage rather than a workload-specific one. The Xeon W-2175's extra 6 cores and 12 threads clearly provide a measurable benefit in Cinebench's multi-threaded workloads. What is more surprising is that the Xeon also wins single-core tests, despite the i9's 1.00 GHz higher boost clock. This indicates that the Skylake architecture, despite being older and on a larger process node, delivers competitive single-thread performance in these specific benchmarks.

The i9-11900KB has no wins in this comparison. Its closest result is in R20 single-core, where it trails by only 3.2%. Across all tests, the i9's scores are consistently about 3% lower, which aligns with its lower average benchmark score of 5587 versus 5770.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-2175 wins every benchmark in this comparison, so it is the default choice for anyone prioritizing Cinebench scores. Its strengths lie in multi-threaded workloads, where 14 cores and 28 threads provide a substantial parallel processing advantage. The quad-channel memory bus with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support also make it suitable for memory-intensive workstation tasks such as rendering, scientific computing, and server applications. The Xeon's 140 W TDP and server-class features position it for sustained, heavy workloads.

The Intel Core i9-11900KB, while losing every head-to-head test, has distinct advantages that are not reflected in these Cinebench numbers. Its 5.30 GHz boost clock and 3.30 GHz base clock are significantly higher, which can benefit lightly threaded applications that are not well-represented by Cinebench. Its 24 MB of shared L3 cache and larger per-core L1 and L2 caches (80 KB and 1.25 MB, respectively) may improve performance in cache-sensitive workloads. The i9 also includes integrated UHD Graphics 750, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios. Its 65 W TDP is less than half the Xeon's, making it far more power-efficient. PCIe Gen 4 support with 20 lanes offers faster connectivity for modern storage and expansion cards.

The i9 is also multiplier unlocked, allowing overclocking, whereas the Xeon is locked. For mobile or compact systems, the i9's BGA 1787 socket and smaller die size (190 mm² vs 484 mm²) are practical benefits. The i9's launch MSRP is $539, while the Xeon's is $1947, but pricing is not a factor in performance analysis.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every key specification. The Xeon W-2175 has 14 cores and 28 threads, while the i9-11900KB has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.50 GHz and boost clock is 4.30 GHz, compared to the i9's 3.30 GHz base and 5.30 GHz boost. The Xeon has a 140 W TDP, the i9 has a 65 W TDP.

The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2066, while the i9 uses Intel BGA 1787. The Xeon is built on Skylake-W architecture from the Skylake generation, using a 14 nm process with a 484 mm² die. The i9 uses Tiger Lake-H architecture from the Tiger Lake generation, on a 10 nm process with a 190 mm² die. The Xeon's L1 cache is 64 KB per core, L2 is 1 MB per core, and L3 is 19.25 MB shared. The i9's L1 is 80 KB per core, L2 is 1.25 MB per core, and L3 is 24 MB shared.

Memory support differs: the Xeon has quad-channel DDR4 with 85.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support, while the i9 has dual-channel DDR4 with 51.2 GB/s and no ECC. PCIe capability is also different: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 48 lanes, the i9 provides Gen 4 with 20 lanes. The i9 has integrated UHD Graphics 750, the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Xeon is a server/workstation part, the i9 is a mobile part. The Xeon has a locked multiplier, the i9 is unlocked. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $1947, and the i9's is $539. The Xeon was released in 2017, while the i9 has no recorded release date. Their part numbers are SR3W2 for the Xeon and SRKU4 for the i9.