Intel Core i9-9880H vs Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i9-9880H. Across six Cinebench tests, the Xeon maintains a narrow but uniform advantage, with delta percentages hovering between 5.6% and 5.8%. This consistency suggests a fundamental performance gap rather than test-specific variability.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 1217 against the Core i9's 1152, a 5.6% edge. The single-core R15 result tells the same story: 171 versus 162, again 5.6% ahead. Moving to R20, the multicore gap widens slightly to 5.6% (5073 versus 4803), while the single-core delta reaches 5.8%, the largest margin in the entire comparison (716 versus 677). R23 multicore shows 12080 versus 11437, and single-core 1705 versus 1614, both at 5.6%.

What is striking here is that the Xeon wins even in single-threaded workloads, where the Core i9's higher boost clock might suggest an advantage. The i9-9880H boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Xeon tops out at 4.00 GHz, yet the Xeon still leads by over 5% in every single-core test. This implies architectural efficiency differences that transcend raw clock rates, or possibly thermal and power management behaviors in the mobile part that prevent it from sustaining its maximum boost.

The multicore results are equally telling. Both processors have 8 cores and 16 threads, so the Xeon's 5.6% multicore lead cannot be attributed to core count. Instead, the Xeon's higher base clock (3.40 GHz versus 2.30 GHz) and its server-oriented power envelope likely allow it to maintain higher sustained frequencies across all cores. The i9-9880H, constrained by a 45W TDP, may be boosting aggressively for short bursts but settling lower under sustained load.

Interestingly, the average benchmark scores place these two very close in the broader landscape. The Xeon's average is 3494, while the i9-9880H sits at 3433, a difference of about 1.8%. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the Intel Xeon E-2246G (3492, 0.1% lower) and the Intel Core i9-9900T (3499, 0.2% higher), indicating the Xeon is essentially tied with those parts. The i9-9880H's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-10875H at 3432, a 0% delta, showing the mobile chip is also right at its expected performance tier.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 scores 12080, which is 5.6% higher than the Intel Core i9-9880H's 11437.

Q: Is the single-core performance difference significant?

A: The Xeon wins all three single-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by 5.6% to 5.8%. The largest gap is in R20 single-core, where the Xeon's 716 beats the i9's 677 by 5.8%.

Q: How do these processors compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Xeon's average score of 3494 is 0.1% above the Intel Xeon E-2246G and 0.2% below the Intel Core i9-9900T. The i9-9880H's average of 3433 is exactly tied with the Intel Core i7-10875H and 0.3% below the AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 8 cores and 16 threads, so the benchmark differences are not due to core count.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i9-9880H boosts to 4.80 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 boosts to 4.00 GHz. Despite this, the Xeon still wins every single-core benchmark.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1680 v4 has a TDP of 140W, while the Core i9-9880H has a TDP of 45W. This likely explains the Xeon's sustained performance advantage in multicore workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 wins in every recorded benchmark category. There is no test in the database where the Core i9-9880H comes out ahead. This makes the use-case split unusually one-sided. The Xeon is the better choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering or compute tasks, which are representative of multi-threaded CPU-bound applications.

However, the nature of the two platforms suggests different deployment scenarios. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 is a desktop processor on Intel Socket 2011-3, with a 140W TDP, designed for workstation-class systems. The Core i9-9880H is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1440, with a 45W TDP, intended for laptops and compact systems. If the use case is a stationary workstation with adequate cooling and power delivery, the Xeon's consistent 5.6% lead makes it the clear performance pick.

The Core i9-9880H, despite losing every benchmark, still offers competitive performance in a far more constrained thermal envelope. Its 45W TDP means it can operate in thin laptops where the Xeon's 140W requirement would be impossible. So while the Xeon wins on raw performance, the i9-9880H wins on mobility and system integration flexibility. For users prioritizing absolute compute throughput, the Xeon is the answer. For those needing 8-core performance in a portable chassis, the i9-9880H is the only feasible option of the two.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every major specification except core count, thread count, and process node. Both use 8 cores and 16 threads, and both are fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process. From there, the differences are substantial.

The Xeon E5-1680 v4 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the Core i9-9880H starts at 2.30 GHz but boosts to 4.80 GHz. The Xeon's TDP is 140W, compared to the i9's 45W, a threefold difference. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, while the i9 uses Intel BGA 1440, meaning the Xeon is socketed and replaceable, while the i9 is soldered to the motherboard.

Cache configurations differ as well. The Xeon has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i9 has 16 MB. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. Memory support shows a clear divergence: the Xeon uses quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, while the i9 uses dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the i9 does not. The Xeon also offers PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i9 has PCIe Gen 3 with no lane count specified in the data. The i9 integrates UHD 630 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The Xeon was released in June 2016 with a launch MSRP of $1723, while the i9-9880H was released in April 2019. The Xeon's die size is 246 mm² with 3,400 million transistors, while the i9's die size is 149 mm² with transistor count not recorded. Both are end-of-life products.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear: the Xeon E5-1680 v4 is based on Broadwell-EP architecture, while the Core i9-9880H uses Coffee Lake-HR. Both are 14 nm parts from Intel, but they serve different market segments. The Xeon is a server-class, desktop-oriented Broadwell-EP chip, while the i9 is a mobile Coffee Lake-HR part.

The Xeon's Broadwell-EP design prioritizes memory bandwidth and ECC support, evidenced by its quad-channel memory controller and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. Its 20 MB shared L3 cache is larger than the i9's 16 MB, which may contribute to its benchmark lead. The 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only) also indicate a workstation-oriented I/O design.

The i9-9880H's Coffee Lake-HR architecture is optimized for power efficiency and mobile integration. Its dual-channel memory controller halves memory bandwidth to 42.7 GB/s, which could impact performance in memory-sensitive workloads. The inclusion of UHD 630 integrated graphics means the i9 can drive displays without a discrete GPU, a feature the Xeon lacks entirely. The i9's smaller die size (149 mm² versus 246 mm²) reflects its more integrated, power-constrained design.

The process node is identical at 14 nm, so the performance difference is not due to transistor size. Instead, the Xeon's higher base clock, larger cache, and quad-channel memory likely explain its consistent 5.6% lead. The i9's higher boost clock (4.80 GHz) is not enough to overcome these structural advantages in the benchmark data.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 outperforms the Intel Core i9-9880H in every recorded benchmark, with margins of 5.6% to 5.8% across all Cinebench tests. The Xeon's wins in both single-core and multi-core workloads, despite the i9's higher boost clock, point to a fundamentally stronger architecture for sustained compute.

The Xeon achieves this with a 140W TDP, quad-channel memory, 20 MB L3 cache, and ECC support. It is designed for workstation-class systems where power and space are not constraints. Its launch MSRP of $1723 reflects its professional positioning, though the database does not record a launch price for the i9-9880H.

The Core i9-9880H, while losing every test, is not without merit. Its 45W TDP and integrated graphics make it suitable for mobile systems, and its average benchmark score of 3433 places it on par with the Intel Core i7-10875H (0% delta) and within 0.3% of the AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS. It delivers competitive 8-core performance in a fraction of the power envelope.

For a fixed workstation or server-style deployment, the Xeon E5-1680 v4 is the clear choice based on benchmark data. For a laptop or compact system where the Xeon's 140W TDP and Socket 2011-3 form factor are impossible, the i9-9880H is the only viable option. The user's platform dictates the choice more than raw performance. The Xeon is the performance winner; the i9 is the mobility winner, but the benchmarks show no scenario where the i9 is faster.