Intel Core i9-9980HK vs Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture. Across every Cinebench test recorded in the database, the Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 finishes ahead of the Intel Core i9-9980HK. The lead is narrow but uniform, with the Xeon winning all six head-to-head comparisons.

In Cinebench R15, the Xeon E5-2658A v3 scores 1274 points in the multicore test against 1193 for the Core i9-9980HK, a 6.8% advantage. The single-core result tells a similar story: 179 points for the Xeon versus 168 for the Core i9, a 6.5% edge. It is notably the single-core margin is nearly as large as the multicore margin, which is somewhat unexpected for a server-oriented processor facing a high-boost mobile chip.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon again leads by 6.8% in both tests. Its multicore score of 5311 compares to 4971 for the Core i9, while the single-core scores are 749 and 701 respectively. The consistency of the delta across R15 and R20 suggests a stable architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

Cinebench R23 confirms the pattern. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 records 12647 points in the multicore test, while the Core i9-9980HK reaches 11836, a 6.9% difference. In the single-core test, the Xeon scores 1785 against 1671, a 6.8% lead. The deltas are almost perfectly uniform across all six tests, ranging only from 6.5% to 6.9%.

The Core i9-9980HK has no benchmark wins in this comparison. Its average benchmark score across all recorded tests is 3577, placing it in the 55th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 averages 3658, sitting in the 56th percentile. The overall average scores differ by roughly 2.3%, which is slightly smaller than the Cinebench-specific deltas, partly because the Core i9 has additional Geekbench results in its record that are not shared by the Xeon.

Context from the nearest rivals helps frame these numbers. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 sits within 0.4% of the Intel Xeon E5-1681 v3 and 0.2% of the Intel Core i9-10885H, while trailing the Intel Core i3-13100E by 0.3% and the AMD EPYC 7251 by 0.4%. The Core i9-9980HK, meanwhile, is essentially tied with the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C at a 0.1% deficit, and trails the AMD Ryzen 7 2700E, Intel Xeon E5-2678 v3, and Intel Xeon E-2286G by margins of 0.7% to 0.9%. Both processors are clustered tightly among comparable parts, but the Xeon holds a small, repeatable edge over the mobile Core i9.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests recorded in the database. The Core i9-9980HK does not win any of the shared comparisons.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multicore workloads?

A: The Xeon leads by 6.8% in Cinebench R15 multicore, 6.8% in R20 multicore, and 6.9% in R23 multicore. The advantage is consistent across all three rendering tests.

Q: Does the Core i9-9980HK have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 wins the single-core tests too, by 6.5% in R15, 6.8% in R20, and 6.8% in R23. Despite the Core i9's higher boost clock, the recorded data does not show a single-core win for the mobile chip.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark averages?

A: The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has an average benchmark score of 3658, while the Core i9-9980HK averages 3577. The Xeon also ranks slightly higher in percentile, at 56 versus 55.

Q: What are the closest rivals for each processor?

A: The Xeon's nearest rival is the Intel Core i9-10885H with an average score of 3651, a 0.2% difference. The Core i9-9980HK's nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 7 5825C at 3579, a 0.1% difference.

Q: Does the Core i9-9980HK appear in any test that the Xeon does not?

A: Yes. The Core i9-9980HK has Geekbench multicore and single-core results (6687 and 1389 respectively), while the Xeon E5-2658A v3 has no Geekbench records in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 is the choice for any workload that relies on the Cinebench rendering suite. It wins every recorded test, whether the workload is multicore or single-core. The multicore advantage of roughly 6.8% to 6.9% is meaningful for sustained rendering tasks, and the single-core lead of 6.5% to 6.8% means even lightly threaded tasks favor the server chip. The Xeon also offers a larger 30 MB shared L3 cache and quad-channel memory support, which can benefit datasets that exceed cache capacity or memory channels.

The Core i9-9980HK does not win any shared benchmark, so there is no performance category in this comparison where the recorded data favors it. Its inclusion in the database with additional Geekbench results does not change the head-to-head outcome. The mobile chip does have an unlocked multiplier, a feature the Xeon lacks, which may matter to users who intend to overclock, but the benchmark data provides no evidence of a performance win in the tested workloads.

For production environments where rendering throughput is the priority, the Xeon E5-2658A v3 is the safer pick based strictly on the numbers. The Core i9-9980HK remains a mobile part with a different thermal envelope and platform, but within the confines of these benchmark results, it trails consistently.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core i9-9980HK has 8 cores and 16 threads. Base clocks are close: 2.20 GHz for the Xeon and 2.40 GHz for the Core i9. The boost clocks diverge sharply, with the Xeon reaching 2.90 GHz and the Core i9 boosting to 5.00 GHz.

Thermal design power differs substantially. The Xeon is rated at 105 watts, while the Core i9 is rated at 45 watts. The socket types are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, and the Core i9 uses Intel BGA 1440. The Xeon targets the server and workstation market segment, while the Core i9 is a mobile part.

Memory configurations also differ. Both support DDR4, but the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, whereas the Core i9 uses a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core i9 does not. PCIe support is listed as Gen 3 with 40 lanes for the Xeon, while the Core i9 is listed simply as Gen 3.

The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i9 includes UHD 630 graphics. The multiplier is locked on the Xeon and unlocked on the Core i9. The Xeon carries a launch MSRP of $1832, while the Core i9 has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. The Core i9 has a release date of April 22, 2019; the Xeon has no release date recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural split is clear. The Xeon E5-2658A v3 is built on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP generation, using a 22 nm process node from Intel. The die size is 356 mm² and the processor contains 2,600 million transistors. The Core i9-9980HK uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-HR, on a 14 nm process node. Its die size is substantially smaller at 149 mm², and no transistor count is recorded in the database.

Cache hierarchies share the same per-core L1 and L2 sizes at 64 KB and 256 KB respectively, but the L3 cache differs. The Xeon has 30 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i9 has 16 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 on the Xeon, combined with the additional cores, helps explain its consistent lead in the rendering benchmarks.

The Xeon also carries the ECC memory feature, which is absent from the Core i9, and its quad-channel memory interface provides 60% more theoretical bandwidth than the Core i9's dual-channel interface (68.3 GB/s versus 42.7 GB/s). These platform-level differences reflect the Xeon's server and workstation positioning versus the Core i9's mobile focus.

The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, and the Core i9 is also end-of-life. The Xeon's part number is SR27T, and the Core i9's is SRFD0.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E5-2658A v3 outperforms the Intel Core i9-9980HK in every shared test, with margins between 6.5% and 6.9%. The Xeon's wins span both multicore and single-core workloads, meaning there is no recorded scenario in this comparison where the Core i9 takes the lead.

The Xeon is the appropriate choice for users who prioritize rendering performance, particularly in multicore tasks where its 12 cores, 24 threads, 30 MB L3 cache, and quad-channel memory provide a measurable advantage. Its server and workstation pedigree, including ECC memory support and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, also makes it suitable for reliability-focused environments. The launch MSRP of $1832 reflects its position in the Xeon lineup.

The Core i9-9980HK does have merits outside the benchmark suite. Its unlocked multiplier, 5.00 GHz boost clock, and 45 watt TDP make it a compelling mobile part, and its integrated UHD 630 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU in some systems. The recorded Geekbench scores, while not compared directly to the Xeon, indicate reasonable single-threaded performance. For users confined to a mobile platform, the Core i9 is the only option of the two, since the Xeon requires a Socket 2011-3 motherboard.

For anyone choosing between these two on the basis of the recorded Cinebench data, the Xeon E5-2658A v3 is the clear winner. The performance gap is consistent, the platform offers more memory bandwidth and cache, and the processor edges out the Core i9 in overall average score and percentile ranking. The Core i9-9980HK is a capable mobile chip, but the data shows it trailing the older Xeon in every shared workload.