Intel Core i9-9980HK vs Intel Xeon W-1290TE Comparison

The Intel Core i9-9980HK and Intel Xeon W-1290TE are both 14 nm Intel parts, but they target different worlds: one is an end-of-life mobile processor, the other an active workstation/server chip. The benchmark data shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the Xeon across every tested workload. This analysis breaks down exactly where each chip stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W-1290TE wins all six benchmark comparisons, though by a slim margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1230 against the Core i9’s 1193, a 3% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern, with the Xeon at 173 versus 168, a 2.9% lead.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the spread remains nearly identical. The Xeon’s multi-core score of 5129 tops the Core i9’s 4971 by 3.1%. In single-core R20, the Xeon’s 724 beats the Core i9’s 701 by 3.2%. These deltas are small, but they are consistent across every iteration of the Cinebench suite.

The latest Cinebench R23 results reinforce the trend. Multi-core scores show the Xeon at 12213 and the Core i9 at 11836, again a 3.1% gap. Single-core R23 puts the Xeon at 1724 versus 1671 for the Core i9, a 3.1% difference. There are no reversals here; the Xeon leads in every single test, and the margin is virtually constant at roughly 3%.

It is notably the Core i9-9980HK does not have a Geekbench score in the head-to-head table, but its standalone benchmark list shows a multi-core score of 6687 and a single-core score of 1389. These numbers are not directly compared against the Xeon, which lacks Geekbench entries entirely. The data available for direct comparison, however, paints a clear picture: the Xeon W-1290TE is the faster chip in all Cinebench workloads, but the lead is modest, not transformative.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The Core i9-9980HK has an average benchmark score of 3577, while the Xeon W-1290TE sits at 3532. This is curious — the Xeon wins every head-to-head test, yet its average score is lower. This is because the Core i9’s average includes its Geekbench results, which are not part of the head-to-head set. The Xeon’s average is derived solely from its six Cinebench scores, which pull its mean down relative to a set that includes the higher Geekbench numbers. Both chips land at the 55th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are statistically equivalent in the broader landscape.

The Verdict

The data directs a clear, though nuanced, verdict. The Intel Xeon W-1290TE is the outright winner in every direct benchmark comparison. If the decision rests purely on raw Cinebench performance, the Xeon is the choice. Its multi-core lead of roughly 3% across R15, R20, and R23 makes it the stronger computational tool for rendering and heavily threaded tasks.

The Core i9-9980HK, however, is not a poor performer. Its single-core scores trail by only 2.9-3.2%, and its average benchmark score is actually higher (3577 vs 3532). The Core i9 also has a higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 4.50 GHz, which explains why the single-core gap is so narrow. For users who prioritize peak clock speed over sustained multi-threaded output, the Core i9 remains competitive.

Who should pick which? The Xeon W-1290TE is the pick for workstation or server builds where ECC memory support and a 10-core/20-thread configuration are required. It is an active production chip with a 35 W TDP, making it efficient for its class. The Core i9-9980HK, being a mobile part with an unlocked multiplier, is the pick for a laptop or compact system where overclocking and high boost clocks matter more than raw core count. Its 45 W TDP is higher, but it is designed for mobility. The data shows the Xeon is faster, but the Core i9 is not far behind, and its higher clock speed gives it a different flavor of performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon W-1290TE scores 12213, while the Intel Core i9-9980HK scores 11836, giving the Xeon a 3.1% lead.

Q: Is the single-core performance difference between the two chips significant?

A: No. In Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 724 versus the Core i9’s 701, a 3.2% gap. In R23, the gap is 3.1% (1724 vs 1671). These are consistent but small margins.

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon W-1290TE has 10 cores and 20 threads. The Core i9-9980HK has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does the Core i9-9980HK support ECC memory?

A: No. The fact pack lists ECC memory as false for the Core i9. The Xeon W-1290TE supports ECC memory.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Xeon W-1290TE?

A: The launch MSRP is $552.

Q: Are both processors on the same manufacturing node?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node, though they use different architectures (Coffee Lake for the Core i9, Comet Lake for the Xeon).

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several key specifications. The Core i9-9980HK has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Xeon W-1290TE has 10 cores and 20 threads. The Xeon also has a larger L3 cache: 20 MB shared versus 16 MB shared on the Core i9. Base clocks differ significantly, with the Core i9 running at 2.40 GHz and the Xeon at a much lower 1800.00 MHz. Boost clocks reverse this, with the Core i9 hitting 5.00 GHz and the Xeon reaching 4.50 GHz.

The TDP figures are also distinct: the Core i9 draws 45 W, while the Xeon is rated at 35 W. The Core i9 uses an Intel BGA 1440 socket, whereas the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1200. The Core i9 has an unlocked multiplier, making it overclockable; the Xeon does not. Memory bandwidth differs, with the Core i9 at 42.7 GB/s and the Xeon at 46.9 GB/s. The integrated graphics are different models: UHD 630 on the Core i9 versus Intel UHD Graphics P630 on the Xeon. The Core i9 is end-of-life, while the Xeon is active. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $552; the Core i9 has no listed MSRP.

Architecture Differences

Architecturally, these are two distinct designs from Intel. The Core i9-9980HK is based on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake-HR codename, and belongs to the Core i9 generation. The Xeon W-1290TE is a Comet Lake part, from the Xeon generation. Both are fabricated on a 14 nm process at Intel, but the die sizes differ: the Core i9 measures 149 mm², while the Xeon is larger at 206 mm².

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is where they diverge, with the Core i9 offering 16 MB shared and the Xeon offering 20 MB shared. The Xeon’s extra cores and larger cache are the primary architectural advantages.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, with dual-channel buses. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core i9 does not. PCIe support is Gen 3 for both, but the Xeon specifies 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i9 lists just “Gen 3” without lane details. The Xeon’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the Core i9 is a Mobile part. The Xeon also has a different integrated graphics solution (UHD P630 vs UHD 630), which is a workstation-oriented variant. The Core i9 was released on 2019-04-22, while the Xeon came later on 2020-05-12.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W-1290TE wins in every direct benchmark comparison. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads, where its 10 cores and 20 threads outpace the Core i9’s 8 cores and 16 threads. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it leads by 3.1%, and the margin holds steady across R15 and R23. The Xeon also wins single-core tests, but by a narrower margin of roughly 3%. For sustained rendering, video encoding, or any heavily threaded task, the Xeon is the superior choice based on the data.

The Core i9-9980HK, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has its own winning profile. Its higher boost clock of 5.00 GHz makes it a strong candidate for lightly threaded tasks that benefit from raw clock speed, even though the benchmark data shows it trailing by 3% in single-core tests. Its unlocked multiplier is a significant feature for enthusiasts who plan to overclock, which the Xeon cannot do. The Core i9 also has a higher average benchmark score (3577 vs 3532), driven by its Geekbench results, where it scores 6687 multi-core and 1389 single-core. For a mobile platform, the Core i9 is the only option here, as the Xeon is a socketed workstation part. The Core i9 wins on mobility, overclocking potential, and peak clock speed; the Xeon wins on core count, cache size, ECC support, and raw Cinebench performance.