Intel Core i9-8950HK vs Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a surprisingly consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i9-8950HK, across all six Cinebench tests. The margins are narrow but uniform, ranging from 6.3% to 6.6% in favor of the server chip. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 achieves this with an 8-core, 16-thread configuration, while the Core i9-8950HK operates with 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon's higher core count appears to offset the Core i9's substantially higher boost clock of 4.70 GHz versus 3.40 GHz.

The database positions these two processors almost identically in the overall CPU landscape. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 sits at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i9-8950HK rests at the 49th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are close as well: 2703 for the Xeon and 2641 for the Core i9. This near-parity in the broader ranking suggests that despite the Xeon's clean sweep in the direct comparisons, the two chips belong to the same performance tier. The practical difference between them is small enough that the choice should be driven by platform needs rather than raw speed.

The verdict splits cleanly by use case. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 is the pick for server and workstation builds on the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, especially where ECC memory is required. The Core i9-8950HK is the pick for mobile systems on the BGA 1440 socket, where its integrated UHD 630 graphics and unlocked multiplier make it a flexible option for laptops. Neither chip is a decisive winner for the other's ecosystem, and the benchmark deltas are too small to override platform compatibility.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads. The Intel Core i9-8950HK has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-2640 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-2640 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i9-8950HK does not list ECC memory support.

Q: Which chip has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core i9-8950HK has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, notably higher than the Xeon E5-2640 v3's 3.40 GHz boost clock.

Q: How large is the L3 cache on each processor?

A: The Xeon E5-2640 v3 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i9-8950HK has 12 MB of shared L3 cache.

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

A: The Xeon E5-2640 v3 scores 9348 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, beating the Core i9-8950HK's 8777, a 6.5% advantage.

Q: Does the Core i9-8950HK have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i9-8950HK includes UHD 630 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 lists no integrated graphics.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architecture generations and target entirely different market segments. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, and belongs to the Xeon E5 server/workstation line. It uses a 22 nm process node with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The Core i9-8950HK is a Coffee Lake part, specifically Coffee Lake-H, designed for high-performance mobile systems. It uses a 14 nm process node with a much smaller die size of 149 mm². The transistor count for the Core i9 is not recorded in the database.

The cache hierarchy reveals a meaningful difference in shared resources. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache differs substantially. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 carries 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i9-8950HK has 12 MB. This larger pool of shared cache on the Xeon likely contributes to its consistent benchmark lead, even in single-threaded tests where its lower clock speed would seem to be a disadvantage.

Memory architecture diverges sharply. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with a recorded memory bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s and full ECC support. The Core i9-8950HK supports DDR4 but the database records no memory bus width or bandwidth figure, and it lacks ECC support. The Xeon also provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i9's PCIe configuration is not recorded.

Platform features differ as well. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for server processors that rely on discrete GPUs or remote management. The Core i9-8950HK includes UHD 630 integrated graphics, making it self-sufficient for mobile displays. The Core i9 also has an unlocked multiplier, while the Xeon does not, which opens overclocking potential on the mobile chip despite its BGA socket.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i9-8950HK has 6 cores and 12 threads. The base clock favors the Core i9 at 2.90 GHz versus 2.60 GHz, and the boost clock gap is even wider: 4.70 GHz for the Core i9 versus 3.40 GHz for the Xeon. The thermal design power is close, with the Xeon rated at 90 watts and the Core i9 at 95 watts.

The sockets are completely incompatible. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, a desktop and server socket. The Core i9-8950HK uses Intel BGA 1440, a soldered mobile package. The Xeon's process node is 22 nm, the Core i9's is 14 nm. The die size difference is significant: 356 mm² for the Xeon versus 149 mm² for the Core i9.

Memory channels and bandwidth favor the Xeon. It supports quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth and ECC memory. The Core i9 supports DDR4 but records no memory bus width or bandwidth, and does not support ECC. The Xeon offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU; the Core i9's PCIe data is absent from the database.

The market segments could not be more different. The Xeon is a Server/Workstation part released on 2014-09-07 with a launch MSRP of $939. The Core i9 is a Mobile part released on 2018-04-01 with no recorded launch MSRP. The Xeon is multiplier-locked, the Core i9 is multiplier-unlocked. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, the Core i9 has UHD 630. Both are listed as end-of-life production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkable for their consistency. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons, and every margin falls between 6.3% and 6.6%. There is no test where the Core i9-8950HK manages to close the gap, and no test where the Xeon extends its lead beyond this narrow band.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 942 against the Core i9's 884, a 6.6% advantage. Single-core R15 shows the same pattern: 132 for the Xeon versus 124 for the Core i9, a 6.5% lead. This single-core result is particularly notable because the Core i9 has a 1.30 GHz higher boost clock. The Xeon's older Haswell architecture and larger 20 MB L3 cache appear to compensate for the clock deficit in this workload.

Cinebench R20 repeats the pattern. Multi-core gives the Xeon 3926 versus 3686 for the Core i9, a 6.5% margin. Single-core gives 553 versus 520, a 6.3% margin. Cinebench R23 follows the same shape: multi-core scores 9348 for the Xeon and 8777 for the Core i9, a 6.5% difference, while single-core scores 1319 and 1239, another 6.5% gap.

The Core i9-8950HK does have two additional Geekbench results in the database that the Xeon lacks, scoring 4577 in multi-core and 1318 in single-core. These cannot be compared directly because no Geekbench scores are recorded for the Xeon E5-2640 v3. Still, the Cinebench data alone establishes a clear, if narrow, overall performance advantage for the Xeon.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this picture. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2703, while the Core i9-8950HK has 2641. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the Intel Core i7-1185G7E at an identical 2703, the Core i7-8700T at 2701, the Core i5-1345UE at 2698, and the Xeon E-2226G at 2709. The Core i9's nearest rivals are the Core i7-5820K at 2642, the Xeon E-2274G at 2643, the Core i7-1195G7 at 2638, and the Core i7-7740X at 2648. Both chips sit in a dense cluster of competitors where a few points separate adjacent entries.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2640 v3 wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. That makes its case straightforward: it is the faster processor in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. The margins are small, between 6.3% and 6.6%, but they are uniform across all six tests. The Xeon also wins on platform-level capabilities: it supports ECC memory, offers quad-channel DDR4 with a recorded 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. These features matter for servers and workstations where data integrity and memory throughput are critical.

The Core i9-8950HK wins on mobility and flexibility. It is a mobile processor on the BGA 1440 socket, designed to be soldered into laptops. It includes UHD 630 integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. Its unlocked multiplier allows overclocking, something the multiplier-locked Xeon cannot offer. Its higher base clock of 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 4.70 GHz give it a theoretical clock-speed advantage that the benchmark data does not translate into wins, but which may matter in workloads not covered by the recorded Cinebench tests.

The use-case split is therefore clean. For a stationary server or workstation build on Socket 2011-3, the Xeon E5-2640 v3 is the better choice according to the data: faster in every measured test, with ECC memory support and greater memory bandwidth. For a mobile system, the Core i9-8950HK is the only viable option of the two, given its BGA socket and integrated graphics. The Core i9's lack of ECC support and unrecorded memory bandwidth make it less suitable for mission-critical data workloads, but its unlocked multiplier and 4.70 GHz boost clock give it appeal for performance-focused laptops.

The database's percentile rankings tell the final story. The Xeon sits at the 50th percentile, the Core i9 at the 49th. These are effectively tied positions. The Xeon's six benchmark wins are real but narrow, and the Core i9's higher clocks and unlocked multiplier suggest it could outperform the Xeon in scenarios outside the recorded test suite. The data does not support declaring a dominant winner; it supports matching the chip to the platform and workload.