Intel Core Ultra 5 245 vs Intel Xeon Gold 5318H Comparison

The Intel Xeon Gold 5318H and Intel Core Ultra 5 245 occupy opposite ends of Intel's lineup, yet both land in the 93rd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon averages 48,698 points across benchmark suites, while the Ultra 5 trails slightly at 48,107. In direct head-to-head tests, the Ultra 5 wins 13 of 17 comparisons, while the Xeon takes 4. The following analysis breaks down where each processor excels, the architectural gulf between them, and the exact numbers behind the wins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Xeon Gold 5318H has 18 cores and 36 threads, while the Core Ultra 5 245 has 14 cores and 14 threads.

Q: What is the maximum boost clock?

A: The Ultra 5 245 boosts to 5.10 GHz, compared to 3.80 GHz for the Xeon.

Q: Which supports faster memory?

A: The Xeon uses DDR4 with six-channel memory and 128.0 GB/s bandwidth; the Ultra 5 uses DDR5 with dual-channel and 102.4 GB/s.

Q: Does either include integrated graphics?

A: The Ultra 5 245 includes Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU; the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

Q: What are the process nodes?

A: The Xeon is built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the Ultra 5 uses TSMC's 3 nm node.

Where Each One Wins

The Core Ultra 5 245 is the clear winner in rendering and general compute workloads. It takes every Cinebench test—R15, R20, and R23—in both single- and multi-core runs, with a consistent 24.5% margin over the Xeon in each case. In Passmark, it also dominates multithread (38,809 vs. 29,301), physics (2,743 vs. 2,309), floating-point math (121,454 vs. 66,610), and single-thread performance (4,475 vs. 2,225). The encryption and prime-number tests show its biggest advantages: 30,374 vs. 10,743 (64.6% higher) and 399 vs. 141 (64.7% higher), respectively.

The Xeon Gold 5318H, however, retains leadership in four specific workloads. Its data compression score of 470,916 beats the Ultra 5's 382,742 by 23%. It also leads in integer math (107,603 vs. 93,709, a 14.8% edge), random string sorting (58,841 vs. 48,661, up 20.9%), and extended instructions (33,730 vs. 32,731, a slim 3.1% margin). These results suggest the Xeon's higher core count and larger L3 cache (24.75 MB vs. 24 MB) still matter for integer-heavy, memory-latency-sensitive tasks, even though the Ultra 5's newer architecture wins most other tests.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from radically different generations and design philosophies. The Xeon Gold 5318H is a Cooper Lake-SP server part built on Intel's 14 nm process, while the Core Ultra 5 245 is an Arrow Lake-S desktop chip fabricated on TSMC's 3 nm node. The Xeon uses a monolithic die with 18 cores and 36 threads, whereas the Ultra 5 uses a hybrid architecture with 14 cores and 14 threads (no hyperthreading). The Ultra 5 reports 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die; the Xeon does not list these figures.

Cache layouts differ as well. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a shared 24.75 MB L3. The Ultra 5 offers 192 KB of L1 and 3 MB of L2 per core, but a slightly smaller shared 24 MB L3. Memory support is another split: the Xeon uses DDR4 with a six-channel interface, delivering 128.0 GB/s, while the Ultra 5 uses DDR5 with dual-channel, reaching 102.4 GB/s. Both support ECC, but the Ultra 5 adds an integrated Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU, which the Xeon lacks.

PCIe capabilities also diverge. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 48 lanes (CPU only), while the Ultra 5 offers Gen 5 with 20 lanes. The socket and market positioning differ too: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4189 and targets Server/Workstation, while the Ultra 5 uses Intel Socket 1851 and targets Desktop. The Xeon was released on 2021-04-05, the Ultra 5 on 2025-01-06. Both have locked multipliers.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon Gold 5318H | Intel Core Ultra 5 245 |

|----------------|----------------------|------------------------|

| Cores | 18 | 14 |

| Threads | 36 | 14 |

| Base clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.80 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 150 W | 65 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 4189 | Intel Socket 1851 |

| Process node | 14 nm | 3 nm |

| Foundry | Intel | TSMC |

| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB (per core) |

| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 3 MB (per core) |

| L3 cache | 24.75 MB (shared) | 24 MB (shared) |

| Memory support | DDR4 | DDR5 |

| Memory bus | Six-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 128.0 GB/s | 102.4 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 48 lanes (CPU only) | Gen 5, 20 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | None | Arc Xe-LPG Graphics 64EU |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Desktop |

| Release date | 2021-04-05 | 2025-01-06 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $270 |

The Xeon also lacks a listed transistor count or die size, while the Ultra 5 reports 17,800 million transistors and a 243 mm² die.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core Ultra 5 245 wins every Cinebench test by the same 24.5% margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 32,987 against the Xeon's 24,905; in single-core, it posts 4,657 vs. 3,516. R20 shows 13,854 vs. 10,460 (multi) and 1,955 vs. 1,476 (single), while R15 gives 3,324 vs. 2,510 (multi) and 469 vs. 354 (single). This uniformity suggests the Ultra 5's higher clock speeds and newer architecture deliver a consistent advantage across rendering workloads.

The Ultra 5's largest wins come in Passmark's encryption and prime-number tests. Encryption scores 30,374 vs. 10,743, a 64.6% gap, and prime-number finding scores 399 vs. 141, a 64.7% gap. Floating-point math also swings heavily: 121,454 vs. 66,610, a 45.2% advantage. Single-thread performance is nearly doubled at 4,475 vs. 2,225, a 50.3% lead. Multithread and physics show smaller but still decisive margins: 38,809 vs. 29,301 (24.5%) and 2,743 vs. 2,309 (15.8%), respectively.

The Xeon Gold 5318H counters with four wins. Its data compression score of 470,916 beats the Ultra 5's 382,742 by 23%. Integer math yields 107,603 vs. 93,709, a 14.8% edge. Random string sorting comes in at 58,841 vs. 48,661, a 20.9% advantage. Extended instructions are nearly tied, but the Xeon takes it 33,730 vs. 32,731, a 3.1% margin. These results indicate that for compression, integer-heavy code, and certain string operations, the Xeon's additional cores and larger L3 cache still matter, even against a much newer and faster-clocked processor.

Overall, the data paints a clear picture: the Core Ultra 5 245 is the faster processor in the vast majority of benchmarks, especially those that benefit from high clock speeds and modern IPC. The Xeon Gold 5318H, however, retains a niche in specific integer and compression workloads, likely due to its higher core count and memory bandwidth. For anyone comparing these two, the choice hinges on whether the workload is dominated by rendering, encryption, and floating-point math (Ultra 5) or by compression, integer sorting, and extended instruction sets (Xeon).