Intel Core i9-9900 vs Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a complete sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 across all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core i9-9900 does not secure a single victory, with the Xeon leading by a consistent margin in every Cinebench iteration. The deltas are remarkably narrow, all falling between -2% and -2.4%, which indicates that despite the Xeon's victory, the two processors are operating in a very close performance band.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon E5-2698B v3 scores 1395 against the Core i9-9900's 1361, a difference of 2.4%. The single-core R15 test shows the same pattern, with the Xeon posting 196 versus 192 for the i9, a 2% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon extends its multicore lead to 5814 over 5673, again a 2.4% delta, while the single-core result is 820 versus 800, also 2.4%. The Cinebench R23 results mirror this exactly: multicore 13843 for the Xeon against 13509 for the i9, and single-core 1954 against 1907, both at a 2.4% delta.

The consistency of these margins is notable. The Xeon wins every test by nearly the same percentage, suggesting that the performance advantage is structural rather than workload-specific. The i9-9900's higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz does not translate into a single-core win, as the Xeon's 3.40 GHz boost still manages to edge ahead by 2% to 2.4% in all single-threaded tests. This is a counterintuitive result given the raw clock speed disparity, but the benchmark data shows the Xeon's architecture delivers slightly better per-thread performance in these specific Cinebench loads.

The average benchmark score in the database further contextualizes this matchup. The Core i9-9900 holds an average score of 4163 with a percentile ranking of 57, while the Xeon E5-2698B v3 averages 4004, also at the 57th percentile. This means that despite losing every head-to-head test, the i9-9900 has a higher overall average score across its full benchmark suite, which includes Geekbench results that the Xeon does not have recorded. The i9-9900 posts Geekbench multicore and single-core scores of 8175 and 1687 respectively, while the Xeon has no Geekbench entries in the database, so the average scores are not directly comparable across the full test set.

For context on how each processor sits relative to its nearest rivals, the i9-9900's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-11500H with an average score of 4187, which is 0.6% higher. The AMD Ryzen 9 5980HS trails at 4121, a 1% gap. The AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700X is at 4114, 1.2% behind, and the Intel Core i5-12500T leads at 4216, 1.3% ahead. The Xeon E5-2698B v3's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655G at 4010, which is 0.2% lower. The Intel Core i5-12400T averages 4019, 0.4% higher, while the Intel Xeon E-2336 and Intel Xeon D-2733NT both sit close at 3985 and 3984, 0.5% behind the Xeon.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 wins all six recorded head-to-head tests. It takes Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multicore and single-core modes, giving it a 6 to 0 advantage over the Intel Core i9-9900.

Q: How large is the Xeon's performance margin over the Core i9 in the Cinebench tests?

A: The margin is consistent but narrow. In five of the six tests, the Xeon leads by exactly 2.4%. The only exception is Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon leads by 2%. The multicore scores show the Xeon ahead by 34 points in R15, 141 points in R20, and 334 points in R23.

Q: Does the Core i9-9900 have any benchmark where it outperforms the Xeon E5-2698B v3?

A: In the direct head-to-head comparisons, no. The Core i9-9900 loses every recorded test. However, the i9-9900 does have Geekbench scores in the database (multicore 8175, singlecore 1687), while the Xeon has no Geekbench results recorded, so no direct comparison can be made in that test.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare between the two CPUs?

A: The Core i9-9900 has a higher average benchmark score of 4163, while the Xeon E5-2698B v3 averages 4004. Both processors sit at the 57th percentile in the database ranking, indicating they occupy a similar overall performance tier despite the Xeon's head-to-head sweep.

Q: What are the closest rivals to each processor according to the database?

A: For the Core i9-9900, the nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-11500H, which averages 4187, just 0.6% higher. The Xeon E5-2698B v3's closest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4655G, averaging 4010, which is 0.2% lower. Both CPUs are closely grouped with their respective rivals, with all deltas under 1.3%.

Q: Does the Xeon's higher core count translate into a proportional performance lead?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2698B v3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, while the Core i9-9900 has 8 cores and 16 threads. Despite having double the core and thread count, the Xeon only leads by 2.4% in multicore Cinebench tests. The benchmark data shows the i9-9900 compensates for fewer cores with its higher clock speeds, resulting in a near-parity in multithreaded performance.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 is the faster processor in every measured Cinebench test, but the margin is so small that it may not be meaningful in real-world scenarios. A 2.4% lead in multicore workloads and a 2% to 2.4% lead in single-core workloads places these two CPUs in essentially the same performance class, despite their very different configurations.

The Core i9-9900 does have a higher average benchmark score, 4163 versus 4004, but this is partly due to the fact that it has Geekbench results recorded while the Xeon does not. The i9-9900's Geekbench scores of 8175 multicore and 1687 single-core are strong numbers, but without comparable Xeon data, they cannot be used to declare an overall winner.

For users prioritizing the specific Cinebench workloads in the database, the Xeon E5-2698B v3 is the correct choice. It wins all six tests, even if the margins are slim. For users looking at the broader benchmark average, the Core i9-9900 holds a slight edge. Given that both processors are end-of-life products, the decision should rest on platform requirements and the specific workloads being run. The Xeon offers double the cores and threads, quad-channel memory, and ECC support, while the Core i9-9900 provides a much higher boost clock, integrated graphics, and a lower TDP. The recorded data does not show a performance gap large enough to override platform preferences.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ substantially in their core and thread counts. The Intel Core i9-9900 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 has 16 cores and 32 threads, exactly double. Clock speeds also diverge sharply. The i9-9900 has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 5.00 GHz, while the Xeon has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost of 3.40 GHz. The Xeon's base clock figure is recorded in MHz, while the i9's is in GHz, but the values indicate the Xeon runs at a much lower base frequency.

Thermal design power differs significantly. The i9-9900 has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Xeon E5-2698B v3 draws 135 watts, more than double. The sockets are incompatible: the i9-9900 uses Intel Socket 1151, and the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3. Memory support also differs, with the i9-9900 using dual-channel DDR4 and the Xeon using quad-channel DDR4. The recorded memory bandwidth reflects this, with the i9-9900 at 42.7 GB/s and the Xeon at 68.3 GB/s.

ECC memory support is another differentiator. The i9-9900 does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon E5-2698B v3 does. PCIe lane counts differ as well, with the i9-9900 providing Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only) and the Xeon providing Gen 3, 40 lanes (CPU only). The i9-9900 includes integrated graphics in the form of UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The market segment also differs, with the i9-9900 classified as Desktop and the Xeon as Server/Workstation. The i9-9900 has a recorded launch MSRP of $423, while the Xeon has no launch MSRP in the database. The i9-9900 has a release date of 2019-04-22, while the Xeon has no recorded release date.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is significant, reflecting different design eras and purposes. The Intel Core i9-9900 is built on the Coffee Lake architecture with the codename Coffee Lake-R, part of the Core i9 (Coffee Lake Refresh) generation. The Intel Xeon E5-2698B v3 uses the older Haswell architecture with the codename Haswell-EP, belonging to the Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) generation.

The process nodes differ by one generation. The i9-9900 is fabricated on a 14 nm process, while the Xeon E5-2698B v3 uses a 22 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel. The die sizes show a notable difference, with the i9-9900 at 180.3 mm² and the Xeon at 356 mm². The Xeon also has a recorded transistor count of 2,600 million, while the i9-9900 has no transistor count listed in the database.

Cache hierarchies share the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes, with 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache differs substantially. The i9-9900 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E5-2698B v3 has 40 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 is consistent with its higher core count and server-oriented design.

The memory architecture is a major difference. The i9-9900 uses dual-channel memory, while the Xeon uses quad-channel memory, which contributes to the Xeon's higher recorded memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s for the i9-9900. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a typical server feature, while the i9-9900 does not.

The PCIe capabilities differ as well. The i9-9900 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. This gives the Xeon far more expansion headroom for server workloads. The i9-9900 includes an integrated GPU, the UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics, which is standard for server processors that rely on discrete GPUs or remote management.

Both processors have locked multipliers, and both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The part numbers differ, with the i9-9900 listed as SRG18 and the Xeon as SR21T. The production status and market segments reflect their intended roles: the i9-9900 for desktop use and the Xeon for server and workstation environments.