Intel Core i9-8950HK vs Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 and Intel Core i9-8950HK occupy different corners of the Intel lineup, yet their benchmark scores place them in a surprisingly tight contest. The data shows a 10-core server processor from 2015 edging out a 6-core mobile flagship from 2018 across every single Cinebench test, with the Xeon winning all six head-to-head matchups. The Xeon’s average benchmark score of 2587 trails the i9’s 2641, but the head-to-head deltas tell a more precise story: the Xeon leads by 1.9% in every multi-core test (R15, R20, R23) and by 1.9% to 2.4% in single-core tests. This is not a generational landslide; it is a narrow, systematic advantage for the older, larger chip. The verdict from the data is clear: the Xeon E5-4620 v3 is the pick for workloads that scale with core count and memory bandwidth, while the Core i9-8950HK is the pick for anyone who needs a self-contained, unlocked mobile processor with integrated graphics and a much higher boost clock.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate that the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 is the superior compute engine for sustained multi-threaded work, despite being three years older. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 8946 against the i9’s 8777, a 1.9% lead that, while modest, is consistent across every iteration of Cinebench. The Xeon’s 10 cores and 20 threads provide a structural advantage over the i9’s 6 cores and 12 threads, and the data shows this advantage manifesting as a clean sweep: 901 vs 884 in R15 multi-core, 3757 vs 3686 in R20 multi-core, and 8946 vs 8777 in R23 multi-core. For rendering, compilation, or any heavily parallel workload, the Xeon is the data-backed choice.

However, the Core i9-8950HK is not without its own merits, and the data suggests a different use case. While the Xeon wins every single-core Cinebench test (127 vs 124 in R15, 530 vs 520 in R20, 1263 vs 1239 in R23), the margins are thin, ranging from 1.9% to 2.4%. The i9’s advantage lies not in raw Cinebench scores but in its platform characteristics: it is a mobile chip with integrated UHD 630 graphics, an unlocked multiplier, and a boost clock of 4.70 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 2.60 GHz. The i9’s average benchmark score of 2641 is actually higher than the Xeon’s 2587, driven by its Geekbench results—4577 multi-core and 1318 single-core—which are not available for the Xeon. The data implies the i9 is the better choice for a laptop or compact system where the Xeon’s 356 mm² die and quad-channel DDR4 requirement are impractical.

Who should pick which? The data points to the Xeon for anyone building a server or workstation where the 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, ECC memory support, and 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth are essential. The i9 is the pick for a mobile workstation or high-end laptop where the unlocked multiplier and integrated graphics matter more than the Xeon’s extra cores. The i9’s end-of-life status and the Xeon’s end-of-life status mean neither is a future-proof investment, but the benchmark data shows the Xeon holds a consistent, if narrow, performance edge in Cinebench.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two processors is stark. The Xeon E5-4620 v3 is built on Intel’s Haswell-EP architecture, fabricated on a 22 nm process node, with transistors numbering 2,600 million on a die size of 356 mm². In contrast, the Core i9-8950HK uses the Coffee Lake-H architecture on a 14 nm process, with a significantly smaller die size of 149 mm² and no transistor count listed in the data. The Xeon’s larger die and older process explain its higher TDP of 105 watts against the i9’s 95 watts, but the Xeon compensates with 10 cores and 20 threads versus the i9’s 6 cores and 12 threads.

Cache configurations differ notably. Both chips share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) cache, but the Xeon features 25 MB of shared L3 cache, more than double the i9’s 12 MB. The Xeon’s memory subsystem is also more robust: it supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the i9’s memory bus and bandwidth are not listed in the data. ECC memory is supported by the Xeon but not by the i9, a critical differentiator for error-sensitive server workloads. The Xeon’s socket is Intel Socket 2011-3, a server platform, while the i9 uses Intel BGA 1440, a soldered mobile package. The i9 includes integrated UHD 630 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. The i9’s multiplier is unlocked, whereas the Xeon’s is locked. The process node difference—22 nm for the Xeon, 14 nm for the i9—explains the die size disparity, but the Xeon’s higher core count and larger cache still give it the edge in multi-threaded benchmarks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins every multi-core Cinebench test. It scores 901 vs 884 in R15, 3757 vs 3686 in R20, and 8946 vs 8777 in R23, a consistent 1.9% lead over the Core i9-8950HK.

Q: Does the Core i9-8950HK have any benchmark advantage?

A: The i9’s average benchmark score is 2641, higher than the Xeon’s 2587. This is driven by its Geekbench results—4577 multi-core and 1318 single-core—which are not recorded for the Xeon.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The Xeon E5-4620 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Core i9-8950HK has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon’s additional 4 cores and 8 threads are the primary reason for its multi-core wins.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-4620 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i9-8950HK does not, as indicated in the data.

Q: How do their boost clocks compare?

A: The Core i9-8950HK has a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, significantly higher than the Xeon E5-4620 v3’s 2.60 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon still wins all single-core Cinebench tests by 1.9% to 2.4%.

Q: Which processor is newer?

A: The Core i9-8950HK was released in 2018, while the Xeon E5-4620 v3 was released in 2015. Both are end-of-life products.

Specification Differences

The specification differences between the two processors are extensive and directly influence their benchmark outcomes. The Xeon E5-4620 v3 offers 10 cores and 20 threads, while the i9-8950HK provides 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clock speeds favor the i9 at 2.90 GHz versus the Xeon’s 2.00 GHz, and boost clocks favor the i9 even more at 4.70 GHz against the Xeon’s 2.60 GHz. The Xeon has a TDP of 105 watts, the i9 95 watts. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, the i9 uses Intel BGA 1440. The Xeon is built on a 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors and a 356 mm² die; the i9 uses a 14 nm process with no listed transistor count and a 149 mm² die. L3 cache is 25 MB for the Xeon versus 12 MB for the i9. The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth; the i9’s memory bus and bandwidth are not listed. ECC memory is supported only by the Xeon. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only); the i9 has no PCIe data listed. Integrated graphics are present only on the i9 (UHD 630). The Xeon’s multiplier is locked; the i9’s is unlocked. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $1668; the i9 has no launch MSRP listed. The Xeon’s part number is SR22K, the i9’s is SRCKN.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is remarkably one-sided. The Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins all six Cinebench tests, with the largest margin in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 127 against the i9’s 124, a 2.4% delta. In every other test, the delta is exactly 1.9%. This consistency is striking: in R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 901 vs 884; in R20 multi-core, 3757 vs 3686; in R20 single-core, 530 vs 520; in R23 multi-core, 8946 vs 8777; and in R23 single-core, 1263 vs 1239. The Xeon’s 10-core advantage is the obvious driver, but the single-core wins are more surprising given the i9’s 4.70 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon’s 2.60 GHz. The data suggests the Xeon’s older Haswell architecture is more efficient per clock in Cinebench, or that the i9’s mobile thermal constraints limit sustained single-core performance. The i9 does not win a single head-to-head test, yet its average benchmark score of 2641 is higher than the Xeon’s 2587, a discrepancy explained by the i9’s Geekbench results, which are not part of the head-to-head set. This means the Xeon’s sweep is confined to Cinebench, while the i9’s overall average is buoyed by Geekbench scores of 4577 multi-core and 1318 single-core.

Where Each One Wins

The data splits cleanly into two use cases. The Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins in every Cinebench scenario—multi-core and single-core—making it the choice for CPU-bound rendering, video encoding, and scientific computing where Cinebench-like workloads dominate. Its 10 cores, 20 threads, 25 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel DDR4 with ECC support position it for server racks and workstations where reliability and memory bandwidth are paramount. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes allow for extensive expansion, and the 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth is a concrete advantage for data-intensive tasks.

The Core i9-8950HK wins in the mobile and flexibility categories, though not in Cinebench. Its integrated UHD 630 graphics mean it can operate without a discrete GPU, and its unlocked multiplier allows for overclocking, which is impossible on the locked Xeon. The 4.70 GHz boost clock gives it a raw frequency advantage that could benefit lightly threaded applications not represented in the Cinebench suite, and its Geekbench scores—4577 multi-core and 1318 single-core—suggest strong performance in that benchmark’s specific workload. The i9’s BGA 1440 socket and 95-watt TDP make it suitable for laptops, where the Xeon’s Socket 2011-3 and 105-watt TDP are impractical. For a user who needs a single, compact system with GPU output and overclocking headroom, the i9 is the data-supported pick. For a user who needs maximum Cinebench throughput, ECC memory, and server-grade expansion, the Xeon is the only choice. The data does not support a third option: the Xeon’s 1.9% lead in Cinebench is narrow, but it is absolute.