Intel Core i7-10710U vs Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the majority of the head-to-head Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v6 wins all six recorded head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks. Its margin over the Intel Core i7-10710U is consistent, ranging from 4.2% to 4.4% depending on the test.

Q: How does the average benchmark score compare between the two?

A: The Xeon E3-1285 v6 records an average benchmark score of 2348, while the Core i7-10710U sits at 2248. That places the Xeon roughly 4.3% higher, which aligns with the per-test deltas.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration of each chip?

A: The Core i7-10710U has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon E3-1285 v6 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having fewer cores, the Xeon still leads in every benchmark.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E3-1285 v6 supports ECC memory. No, the Core i7-10710U does not list ECC memory support in the recorded data.

Q: What are the release dates for these two parts?

A: The Core i7-10710U was released on August 20, 2019. The Xeon E3-1285 v6 was released earlier, on July 31, 2017.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare in Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E3-1285 v6 scores 1146 in Cinebench R23 single-core, versus 1097 for the Core i7-10710U. The Xeon leads by 4.3%.

Architecture Differences

The Core i7-10710U is built on Comet Lake-U architecture, a 14 nm process from Intel. It belongs to the Core 10th Gen series and targets the mobile segment, using the Intel BGA 1440 socket. Its base clock is 1100 MHz with a boost clock of 4.70 GHz, and it has a thermal design power (TDP) of 25 W. The chip integrates UHD Graphics and supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory. It has no ECC memory support.

The Xeon E3-1285 v6 uses Kaby Lake-DT architecture, also on Intel's 14 nm process, but is classified as a server or workstation part. It fits the Intel Socket 1151, has a base clock of 4.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.50 GHz, with a TDP of 79 W. Its integrated graphics are the HD Graphics P630, and it supports only DDR4 memory in dual-channel mode. ECC memory is supported, and the CPU provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU alone.

Both share the same 14 nm process and the same per-core L1 cache of 64 KB and L2 cache of 256 KB. The L3 cache differs: the Core i7-10710U has 12 MB shared, while the Xeon E3-1285 v6 has 8 MB shared. The Xeon has a listed transistor count of 1,400 million and a die size of 160 mm²; the Core i7 does not have those values recorded.

The Core i7 is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the Xeon has no recorded production status. The Xeon has a part number, SR373, and the Core i7 does not list one. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The data points in one direction: the Xeon E3-1285 v6 outperforms the Core i7-10710U in every recorded benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests, with deltas between 4.2% and 4.4%. Its average benchmark score of 2348 exceeds the Core i7's 2248, and its percentile ranking among all CPUs is 48 versus 47.

The Core i7-10710U does have advantages in core count and thread count, offering 6 cores and 12 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has a larger L3 cache (12 MB versus 8 MB) and a much lower TDP (25 W versus 79 W), which matters for mobile deployments. The Core i7 also supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the Xeon is limited to DDR4.

However, the benchmark results are unambiguous. The Xeon leads in single-core and multi-core tests across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. For workloads that depend on raw Cinebench scores, the Xeon E3-1285 v6 is the stronger choice.

The Core i7-10710U is the better fit for a mobile, power-constrained system where the 25 W TDP and BGA 1440 socket are required. The Xeon E3-1285 v6 is the better fit for a server or workstation environment where ECC memory support, a socketed LGA 1151 platform, and higher benchmark scores are priorities. Users who need more cores and threads, or who require DDR3 compatibility, would select the Core i7 despite its lower scores. Users who need ECC memory and maximum Cinebench performance from these two options would select the Xeon.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Core i7-10710U has 6 cores and 12 threads; the Xeon E3-1285 v6 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: 1100 MHz for the Core i7 versus 4.10 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are closer, at 4.70 GHz versus 4.50 GHz. TDP is 25 W versus 79 W.

Sockets differ: Intel BGA 1440 for the Core i7, Intel Socket 1151 for the Xeon. The architecture and codename differ as well: Comet Lake-U versus Kaby Lake-DT. The Core i7 belongs to Core 10th Gen, while the Xeon has no series listed.

Cache sizes differ at L3: 12 MB shared for the Core i7 versus 8 MB shared for the Xeon. Memory support differs: DDR3 and DDR4 for the Core i7, DDR4 only for the Xeon. The Xeon has dual-channel memory bus support recorded; the Core i7 has no memory bus entry. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon, not on the Core i7.

PCIe information is recorded only for the Xeon: Gen 3, 16 lanes (CPU only). Integrated graphics differ: UHD Graphics for the Core i7, HD Graphics P630 for the Xeon. Market segments differ: Mobile for the Core i7, Server/Workstation for the Xeon.

Release dates differ: August 20, 2019 for the Core i7, July 31, 2017 for the Xeon. The Core i7 is listed as end-of-life; the Xeon has no production status recorded. The Xeon lists a transistor count of 1,400 million and a die size of 160 mm²; the Core i7 has neither recorded. The Xeon has a part number, SR373; the Core i7 does not.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results cover six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon E3-1285 v6 wins every one. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 818 against 783 for the Core i7, a delta of 4.3%. In R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 115 against 110, again a 4.3% delta.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 3409 versus 3265, a 4.2% delta. In R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 481 versus 460, a 4.4% delta. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 8119 versus 7774, a 4.2% delta. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 1146 versus 1097, a 4.3% delta.

The pattern is consistent: the Xeon leads by roughly 4.2% to 4.4% across every test. No single benchmark shows the Core i7 ahead. The largest margin is in R20 single-core at 4.4%, while the smallest margins are in R20 multi-core and R23 multi-core at 4.2%.

The average benchmark scores reflect the same trend. The Xeon's average of 2348 places it 4.3% above the Core i7's 2248. In percentile terms, the Xeon sits at the 48th percentile among all CPUs, and the Core i7 at the 47th percentile.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1285 v6 wins in every recorded Cinebench benchmark. That includes both single-core and multi-core tests across three versions of Cinebench. Its wins range from 4.2% to 4.4%, making it the clear performance leader in this comparison.

The Core i7-10710U wins in specifications that favor mobile and power-sensitive designs. It has a 25 W TDP, which is far below the Xeon's 79 W. It offers 6 cores and 12 threads, which is more parallel capacity than the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads. It also has a larger L3 cache at 12 MB versus 8 MB.

Use cases for the Core i7-10710U include thin-and-light laptops or other BGA 1440 mobile platforms where power draw and heat are constrained. It also supports DDR3 memory, which may be relevant for systems reusing older memory modules. Its higher core and thread count could benefit workloads that scale with parallel threads, even though the recorded Cinebench scores do not show that advantage.

Use cases for the Xeon E3-1285 v6 include server or workstation builds on Socket 1151 where ECC memory is required. Its higher base clock of 4.10 GHz and boost clock of 4.50 GHz contribute to its benchmark lead. The recorded PCIe Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes also supports expansion in workstation scenarios.

In summary, the Xeon wins on every measured benchmark, while the Core i7 wins on power efficiency, core count, cache size, and memory flexibility. The choice depends on whether the priority is raw Cinebench performance and ECC support, or mobile compatibility and lower power consumption.