Intel Core i7-10870H vs Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-10870H boosts up to 5.00 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 reaches a maximum of 4.00 GHz. The Core i7 holds a 1.00 GHz advantage in peak single-thread frequency.

Q: Do both CPUs have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 and the Intel Core i7-10870H feature 8 cores and 16 threads. The core configuration is identical, but their architectures and supporting features differ significantly.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-10870H does not. This makes the Xeon better suited for workstation or server environments where error-correcting memory is required.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 scores 12080 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Intel Core i7-10870H scores 11852. The Xeon leads by 1.9% in this test.

Q: What is the difference in TDP between the two processors?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 has a TDP of 140 W, while the Intel Core i7-10870H has a TDP of 45 W. The Core i7 consumes substantially less power, reflecting its mobile design.

Q: Are both processors unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, neither the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 nor the Intel Core i7-10870H has an unlocked multiplier. Both are locked processors.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 and the Intel Core i7-10870H represent two distinct design philosophies from Intel, separated by several years of development. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 is built on the Broadwell-EP architecture and belongs to the Xeon E5 generation, while the Core i7-10870H uses the Comet Lake-H architecture and is part of the Core 10th Gen series.

Both processors are manufactured on Intel's 14 nm process node, but the similarities largely end there. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 has a die size of 246 mm² and contains 3,400 million transistors, whereas the Core i7-10870H does not have listed transistor or die size data in the database. The Xeon is a desktop-class part designed for the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, while the Core i7 is a mobile processor using the Intel BGA 1440 socket.

Cache configurations differ between the two. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is larger on the Xeon: 20 MB shared versus 16 MB shared on the Core i7. This 4 MB difference in last-level cache can influence performance in cache-sensitive workloads.

Memory support also diverges. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The Core i7-10870H also supports DDR4, but the database does not list its memory bus width or bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core i7. The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), a major difference for expansion capability.

The Core i7-10870H includes integrated UHD Graphics, while the Xeon E5-1680 v4 has no integrated graphics listed. The Xeon was released on 2016-06-19 and is end-of-life, while the Core i7 was released on 2020-09-16 and remains active in production. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1723, while no launch MSRP is listed for the Core i7.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 wins in every Cinebench benchmark recorded in the database, but the margins are uniformly small. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 1217 against 1194 for the Core i7, a 1.9% lead. In Cinebench R15 single-core, it scores 171 against 168, a 1.8% lead. The pattern repeats across R20 and R23, with the Xeon winning by 1.9% to 2.0% in each case. These results indicate that the Xeon holds a consistent, if narrow, performance edge in CPU render workloads.

The Intel Core i7-10870H, despite losing all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, offers strengths in areas the Xeon cannot match. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock is 1.00 GHz higher than the Xeon's 4.00 GHz, which can translate to better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks that depend on raw clock speed. The Core i7 also has a 45 W TDP versus 140 W for the Xeon, making it far more suitable for thin-and-light laptops where power and thermal constraints are critical. The Core i7 includes integrated UHD Graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios. Additionally, the Core i7 has a higher average benchmark score in the 3DMark suite, with scores of 720 in single-thread, 1347 in 2-thread, 2462 in 4-thread, 4013 in 8-thread, 5163 in 16-thread, and 5178 in max-thread tests, although the Xeon does not have 3DMark scores in the database for direct comparison.

The Xeon's quad-channel memory bus and 76.8 GB/s memory bandwidth, along with ECC support and 40 PCIe lanes, make it the better choice for workstation builds that require high memory throughput, error-correcting memory, and extensive expansion options. The Core i7's mobile platform, integrated graphics, and lower power draw make it the natural pick for portable systems.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 and the Intel Core i7-10870H:

• Base clock: 3.40 GHz (Xeon) versus 2.20 GHz (Core i7)
• Boost clock: 4.00 GHz (Xeon) versus 5.00 GHz (Core i7)
• TDP: 140 W (Xeon) versus 45 W (Core i7)
• Socket: Intel Socket 2011-3 (Xeon) versus Intel BGA 1440 (Core i7)
• Architecture: Broadwell (Xeon) versus Comet Lake (Core i7)
• Codename: Broadwell-EP (Xeon) versus Comet Lake-H (Core i7)
• Generation: Xeon E5 (Broadwell-EP) versus Core i7 (Comet Lake-H)
• Transistors: 3,400 million (Xeon) versus not listed (Core i7)
• Die size: 246 mm² (Xeon) versus not listed (Core i7)
• L3 cache: 20 MB shared (Xeon) versus 16 MB shared (Core i7)
• Memory bus: Quad-channel (Xeon) versus not listed (Core i7)
• Memory bandwidth: 76.8 GB/s (Xeon) versus not listed (Core i7)
• ECC memory: Supported (Xeon) versus not supported (Core i7)
• PCIe lanes: 40 Gen 3 lanes (Xeon) versus 16 Gen 3 lanes (Core i7)
• Integrated graphics: None (Xeon) versus UHD Graphics (Core i7)
• Market segment: Desktop (Xeon) versus Mobile (Core i7)
• Production status: End-of-life (Xeon) versus Active (Core i7)
• Release date: 2016-06-19 (Xeon) versus 2020-09-16 (Core i7)
• Launch MSRP: $1723 (Xeon) versus not listed (Core i7)
• Part number: SR2P8 (Xeon) versus SRK3Y (Core i7)

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records six head-to-head benchmark comparisons between the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 and the Intel Core i7-10870H, all in the Cinebench suite. The Xeon wins all six, but none by a large margin.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1217 and the Core i7 scores 1194, giving the Xeon a 1.9% advantage. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 171 and the Core i7 scores 168, a 1.8% lead. These are the smallest margins in the comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 5073 in multi-core against 4977 for the Core i7, a 1.9% difference. In R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 716 and the Core i7 scores 702, a 2.0% lead, the largest margin recorded in any test.

Cinebench R23 shows similar results. The Xeon scores 12080 in multi-core versus 11852 for the Core i7, a 1.9% lead. In R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 1705 versus 1673, another 1.9% margin.

The consistency of these deltas, all between 1.8% and 2.0%, suggests that the Xeon's advantage is uniform across rendering workloads regardless of thread count. The Core i7's higher boost clock does not translate into a single-core win in these tests, as the Xeon's higher base clock, larger L3 cache, and quad-channel memory configuration appear to offset the frequency disadvantage.

The average benchmark score in the database reflects a similar picture. The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 3494, while the Core i7 has an average of 3446. The Xeon sits at the 55th percentile among all CPUs, while the Core i7 sits at the 54th percentile. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E-2246G (avg score 3492, delta 0.1%), the Intel Core i9-9900T (avg score 3499, delta -0.2%), the Intel Xeon E-2176G (avg score 3502, delta -0.2%), and the Intel Xeon D-1732TE (avg score 3486, delta 0.2%). The Core i7's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 5600HS (avg score 3447, delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 5 4600HS (avg score 3444, delta 0.1%), the Intel Core i7-5960X (avg score 3442, delta 0.1%), and the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 5350G (avg score 3441, delta 0.1%).

The Verdict

The data points to a clear but narrow performance winner: the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench benchmarks, with margins ranging from 1.8% to 2.0%. Its average benchmark score of 3494 also tops the Core i7's 3446, and it holds a one-point advantage in percentile ranking (55th versus 54th). For anyone building a desktop workstation and prioritizing raw CPU render performance, the Xeon is the better choice based on the recorded measurements.

However, the Core i7-10870H is not without its own case. The 45 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient than the 140 W Xeon, a critical factor for laptops and compact systems. Its 5.00 GHz boost clock is 1.00 GHz higher, which can benefit bursty workloads that are not captured in the Cinebench suite. The integrated UHD Graphics means the Core i7 can drive a display without a separate GPU, something the Xeon cannot do. The Core i7 is also an active product, while the Xeon is end-of-life.

The selection depends on the platform. A desktop workstation with a Socket 2011-3 motherboard, ECC memory support, quad-channel bandwidth, and 40 PCIe lanes favors the Xeon. A mobile laptop with a BGA 1440 socket, integrated graphics, and tight power constraints favors the Core i7. The benchmark results give the Xeon the edge in raw compute, but the Core i7's platform advantages and power profile define its own role in the market.