Intel Core i9-13900H vs Intel Xeon Phi 7210 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a remarkably one-sided picture. The Intel Core i9-13900H wins 16 of 17 head-to-head comparisons, with the Xeon Phi 7210 managing a single, narrow victory. That win comes in PassMark data compression, where the Xeon Phi scores 332,960 against the i9-13900H’s 326,425 — a 2% edge. It is a small margin, but it is the only category where the 64-core part’s sheer thread count translates into a measurable advantage.

Everywhere else, the i9-13900H is decisively faster, often by staggering margins. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i9-13900H scores 17,471 versus the Xeon Phi’s 6,210 — a 64.5% deficit for the Phi. The single-core gap is even more pronounced in percentage terms: 1,964.5 versus 876, a 55.4% difference. But the most lopsided results come in workloads that reward high clock speeds and modern microarchitecture. PassMark single-thread shows the i9-13900H at 3,754 against the Xeon Phi’s 460, an 87.7% swing. PassMark physics is similarly brutal: 1,745 versus 198, an 88.7% deficit. PassMark prime numbers, a notoriously latency-sensitive test, shows a 90.4% gap (104 versus 10).

The multi-core Cinebench results are worth dwelling on because they contradict the expectation that more cores should win. The Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads; the i9-13900H has 14 cores and 20 threads. Yet in Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i9-13900H scores 9,676 against 2,608 — a 73% advantage. In R15 multi-core, it is 2,666.5 versus 625, a 76.6% gap. The i9-13900H’s 5.40 GHz boost clock and modern Raptor Lake architecture simply overwhelm the Phi’s 1.50 GHz ceiling and older Knights Landing design.

PassMark integer math is closer than most, with the i9-13900H ahead by 12.6% (97,159 versus 84,874). Extended instructions are closer still — a 5% edge for the i9-13900H (19,330 versus 18,359). These are the only other categories where the Xeon Phi gets within shouting distance, which suggests its wide vector units still have some relevance for specific instruction mixes. But the overall pattern is unambiguous: the i9-13900H dominates in encryption (18,974 versus 3,455, an 81.8% gap), multithread (27,673 versus 7,306, 73.6%), random string sorting (35,637 versus 8,956, 74.9%), and floating-point math (69,611 versus 29,356, 57.8%).

Architecture Differences

These two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Xeon Phi 7210 is built on a 14 nm process and uses the Knights Landing architecture, launched in mid-2016. It is a server/workstation part with 64 cores and 256 threads, running at a base clock of 1.30 GHz and a boost of 1.50 GHz. Its cache layout is per-core: 32 KB of L1 and 512 KB of L2 per core, with no shared L3. It supports DDR4 memory and has ECC support. The socket is Intel Socket 3647.

The i9-13900H is a mobile part from the Core 13th Gen series, built on a 10 nm process with the Raptor Lake-H architecture, released in January 2023. It has 14 cores and 20 threads, with a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost of 5.40 GHz. Its cache hierarchy is different: 80 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of L2 per core, and a shared 24 MB L3. It supports both DDR4 and DDR5 memory in dual-channel configuration, but notably lacks ECC support. The socket is Intel BGA 1744, and it includes integrated Iris Xe Graphics with 96 execution units. The i9-13900H also has PCIe Gen 5 with 8 lanes (CPU only) and a die size of 257 mm².

The transistor counts tell part of the story. The Xeon Phi 7210 packs 8,000 million transistors into its 14 nm die. The i9-13900H’s transistor count is not listed in the data, but its 10 nm process and smaller die (257 mm²) indicate a much denser, more modern implementation. The Xeon Phi’s design prioritizes raw thread count for massively parallel throughput; the i9-13900H prioritizes per-thread performance and power efficiency.

Power envelopes differ enormously. The Xeon Phi 7210 has a TDP of 215 watts, while the i9-13900H is rated at 45 watts. That is a four-fold difference in power draw, which explains why the mobile part can sustain such high boost clocks. The Xeon Phi’s 64 cores need substantial power just to stay at 1.50 GHz; the i9-13900H can push a single core to 5.40 GHz on a fraction of the power budget.

Memory support also diverges. The Xeon Phi 7210 supports DDR4 only, with ECC mandatory for its server role. The i9-13900H supports both DDR4 and DDR5, but without ECC. The memory bus width is not listed for the Xeon Phi, while the i9-13900H is explicitly dual-channel.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i9-13900H is the better processor for virtually every measured workload. It wins 16 of 17 head-to-head benchmarks, often by margins exceeding 70%. Its 5.40 GHz boost clock and modern architecture deliver massive advantages in single-threaded and lightly-threaded tasks, and its 14-core/20-thread configuration is sufficient to beat the Xeon Phi’s 64-core/256-thread design in multi-core tests as well.

The Xeon Phi 7210’s single win in data compression (332,960 versus 326,425) is a narrow 2% edge that will matter only in very specific server workloads. Its 215-watt TDP and 2016-era design make it a poor choice for anything requiring responsiveness, general-purpose computing, or power efficiency. The i9-13900H, by contrast, is a 45-watt mobile part that outperforms it across the board while drawing one-fifth the power.

Both processors sit at the 81st percentile in the benchmark database’s overall ranking, and their average benchmark scores are close (29,245 for the Xeon Phi versus 28,886 for the i9-13900H). But that aggregate similarity hides the distribution of wins. The Xeon Phi’s average is buoyed by its data compression score; the i9-13900H’s is spread across a much wider range of workloads. For anyone choosing between these two, the i9-13900H is the rational pick unless the specific workload is data compression and the power budget is irrelevant.

FAQ

Q: How many cores and threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has 64 cores and 256 threads. The Intel Core i9-13900H has 14 cores and 20 threads.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-13900H has a boost clock of 5.40 GHz. The Intel Xeon Phi 7210 has a boost clock of just 1.50 GHz.

Q: What is the power draw difference?

A: The Xeon Phi 7210 has a TDP of 215 watts, while the i9-13900H has a TDP of 45 watts.

Q: Does the i9-13900H support ECC memory?

A: No. The i9-13900H does not support ECC memory. The Xeon Phi 7210 does support ECC.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The i9-13900H scores 17,471, compared to the Xeon Phi 7210’s 6,210 — a 64.5% advantage for the i9-13900H.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Xeon Phi 7210 wins?

A: Yes, PassMark data compression. The Xeon Phi scores 332,960 versus the i9-13900H’s 326,425, a 2% edge.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i9-13900H wins in almost every category, but the size of its advantage varies by workload. Its largest margins come in single-threaded and latency-sensitive tests: PassMark single-thread (87.7% ahead), PassMark physics (88.7%), and PassMark prime numbers (90.4%). These results reflect the i9-13900H’s 5.40 GHz boost clock and modern Raptor Lake microarchitecture.

The i9-13900H also dominates in multi-threaded general-purpose tasks. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core scores show it ahead by 76.6%, 73%, and 64.5% respectively. PassMark multithread shows a 73.6% advantage, and PassMark random string sorting shows 74.9%. These are workloads where the Xeon Phi’s 256 threads should theoretically help, but the i9-13900H’s higher per-core performance and efficient scheduling win out.

The Xeon Phi 7210’s only victory is PassMark data compression, where it edges ahead by 2%. This is a specialized workload that appears to benefit from the Phi’s massive thread count and wide vector units. If your primary task is data compression, the Xeon Phi has a measurable, if small, advantage. Its other closest results are in PassMark extended instructions (5% behind) and integer math (12.6% behind), suggesting it can hold its own in some compute-heavy integer and SIMD workloads.

For any other use case — gaming, productivity, content creation, software development, or general server tasks — the i9-13900H is the clear choice. Its integrated Iris Xe Graphics, lower power draw, and modern memory support make it far more versatile. The Xeon Phi 7210 is a niche server part whose only justification is specific throughput-oriented tasks where its 256 threads can be fully utilized and its 215-watt power draw is acceptable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Phi 7210 | Intel Core i9-13900H |

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

| Cores | 64 | 14 |

| Threads | 256 | 20 |

| Base Clock | 1.30 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 1.50 GHz | 5.40 GHz |

| TDP | 215 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 3647 | Intel BGA 1744 |

| Architecture | Knights Landing | Raptor Lake |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 10 nm |

| Transistors | 8,000 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | Not listed | 257 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 32 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 512 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | None | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, DDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Not listed | Dual-channel |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Not listed | Gen 5, 8 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe Graphics 96EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2016-06-19 | 2023-01-03 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $617 |