Intel Core i5-7400T vs Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 Comparison

The recorded data shows an unusual matchup: a discontinued server chip and a low-power desktop chip landing on nearly identical average scores. The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 posts an average benchmark score of 1368, the Intel Core i5-7400T sits at 1348, and both occupy the 36th percentile against the full CPU database. Yet the per-test breakdown tells a one-sided story, with the Xeon sweeping every shared benchmark. The gap comes down to one structural difference: the Xeon runs four cores with eight threads, while the Kaby Lake part is locked at four cores and four threads.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins everything the two chips have in common. It takes all six head-to-head Cinebench contests, multi-core and single-core alike, with margins between 18.6 and 19.6 percent. That uniformity is the headline: this is not a case where one chip trades blows depending on workload. The Ivy Bridge-EN part is simply faster in every rendering test in the database, in both multi-threaded and lightly threaded runs.

The i5-7400T's wins are not in the benchmark table but in the spec sheet. It carries integrated HD 630 graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely, so any build without a discrete GPU only works with the Core chip. It also has a 35 W TDP versus the Xeon's 80 W, support for DDR4 instead of DDR3, and higher theoretical memory bandwidth at 38.4 GB/s against 32.0 GB/s. It is also an active product, while the Xeon is end-of-life. If the question is raw CPU performance, the Xeon answers it. If the question is efficiency, platform modernity, or graphics capability, the i5-7400T is the only option of the two.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall?

A: The Xeon E5-1410 v2. It wins all six shared Cinebench tests, by 18.6 to 19.6 percent in each case, and holds the higher average score, 1368 versus 1348.

Q: Why does the older Xeon beat the newer Core i5?

A: Hyper-threading. The Xeon runs 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-7400T is limited to 4 cores and 4 threads. Even in single-core tests, where threading should not matter, the Xeon's higher clocks (3.20 GHz boost versus 3.00 GHz) and larger 10 MB L3 cache keep it ahead by roughly 19 percent.

Q: Are they comparable in the broader database?

A: Yes. Both sit in the 36th percentile versus all CPUs, and their average scores are within 20 points of each other. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon D-1521, the AMD Opteron 6376, the Intel Core i7-3820QM, and the Intel Core i7-2600, all clustered within a fraction of a percent. The i5-7400T's rivals include the Intel Core i5-4670, Intel Xeon W-2104, Intel Core i5-4590T, and Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3, similarly tight.

Q: Which one supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-1410 v2, which fits its server and workstation market segment. The i5-7400T does not support ECC.

Q: Which has integrated graphics?

A: The i5-7400T, with Intel HD 630. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 has no integrated graphics listed, so it requires a discrete GPU.

Q: Which uses less power?

A: The i5-7400T, with a 35 W TDP. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 is rated at 80 W.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 results set the pattern. Multi-core: 476 for the Xeon against 401 for the i5-7400T, an 18.7 percent win. Single-core: 67 versus 56, a 19.6 percent win, the largest gap of the entire set. That single-core result is the most telling data point in the comparison, because it shows the Xeon leading even where its thread-count advantage is irrelevant. The recorded data attributes that to higher boost clocks and a larger shared cache.

Cinebench R20 repeats the story almost exactly. Multi-core lands at 1987 versus 1672, an 18.8 percent gap, and single-core at 280 versus 236, an 18.6 percent gap. Cinebench R23 closes with 4732 versus 3981 multi-core (18.9 percent) and 668 versus 562 single-core (18.9 percent). Six tests, six wins for the Xeon, and every margin between 18.6 and 19.6 percent. Consistency like that is rare in cross-generation comparisons, and it means the outcome does not depend on workload threading behavior within this test suite.

The i5-7400T does have two Geekbench entries in the database, 2864 multi-core and 1014 single-core, but the Xeon has no Geekbench results recorded, so no direct comparison is possible there. The verdict rests entirely on the Cinebench data, and that data is unambiguous.

Specification Differences

The two chips differ on nearly every line. Cores match at 4, but threads split 8 to 4 in the Xeon's favor. Base clock favors the Xeon at 2.80 GHz versus 2.40 GHz, as does boost at 3.20 GHz versus 3.00 GHz. The TDP relationship inverts: 80 W for the Xeon, 35 W for the i5-7400T, a substantial efficiency advantage for the desktop part.

Memory is a generational divide. The Xeon supports DDR3 on a triple-channel bus with 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth and ECC capability. The i5-7400T supports DDR4 on a dual-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC. Note the contrast: newer and faster memory on the Core chip, but more channels and error correction on the Xeon.

PCIe is also split: 24 Gen 3 lanes from the Xeon CPU against 16 Gen 3 lanes from the i5-7400T, which matters for expansion-heavy builds. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the i5-7400T includes HD 630. Sockets are incompatible, Intel Socket 1356 versus Intel Socket 1151, so these parts can never share a motherboard. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon is end-of-life after a 2014 launch; the i5-7400T remains active following its 2017 introduction.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5-1410 v2 is built on Intel's Ivy Bridge architecture, specifically the Ivy Bridge-EN server variant, on a 22 nm process at Intel's own foundry. The database records 1,860 million transistors on a 257 mm² die, figures consistent with a chip carrying server-class cache and platform features. Cache is generous: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3.

The i5-7400T uses Kaby Lake on a 14 nm process, also from Intel. Transistor count and die size are not recorded for this part. Its cache structure matches at L1 and L2, but shared L3 drops to 6 MB. That 4 MB L3 deficit is one of the clearest architectural explanations for the single-core deficit in the Cinebench results, alongside the lower operating clocks. Ivy Bridge's hyper-threading support is the other architectural difference that decides the multi-core results, since Kaby Lake i5 parts ship without it.

The Verdict

For pure CPU throughput, the data picks the Xeon E5-1410 v2 without hesitation: a clean sweep of all shared benchmarks at a consistent margin near 19 percent, plus ECC support, more PCIe lanes, and a larger cache. Buyers building a used workstation or a rendering box around Socket 1356 and DDR3 get the faster processor of the two in every measured test.

The i5-7400T earns its place on different grounds. It delivers its performance inside a 35 W envelope, runs on an active platform with DDR4 and more memory bandwidth, and includes HD 630 graphics for builds without a discrete card. Against its own rival set, including the Intel Core i5-4670 and Intel Xeon E3-1226 v3, it holds its ground with deltas under one percent in either direction.

Practical takeaway: if the machine must render or compute and a discrete GPU is already in the plan, the Xeon is the stronger CPU by the numbers. If the priority is a low-power, self-contained desktop on current-adjacent parts, the i5-7400T is the only one of the two that fits, and its benchmark scores sit within touching distance on average despite losing every individual shared test.