Intel Core i7-10875H vs Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark data presents a clear, though narrow, picture: the Intel Core i7-10875H wins all six head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4. The margins are consistent, with the Core i7-10875H leading by 1.2% to 1.7% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, in both single-core and multi-core tests. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 does not claim a single victory in the direct comparisons.

This outcome is remarkable given the context. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 is a desktop-class, 140W processor with a 2016 release date, while the Core i7-10875H is a 45W mobile chip released in 2020. The mobile part, despite a much lower thermal envelope, outruns the older desktop Xeon in every recorded test. The data suggests that architectural refinements and a higher boost clock in the newer mobile chip outweigh the older Xeon's larger cache and higher base clock.

For buyers, the choice depends on the platform. The Core i7-10875H is the clear performance pick in a direct comparison, but it is locked to a mobile BGA socket. The Xeon E5-1680 v4, while slower in these tests, offers ECC memory support and quad-channel memory bandwidth, features that the Core i7-10875H lacks entirely. The data shows a performance win for the mobile chip, but the Xeon remains the only option for workstation platforms that require those specific enterprise features.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different design philosophies from different eras. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 is built on the Broadwell-EP architecture, using a 14 nm process node with 3,400 million transistors on a 246 mm² die. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform. The Core i7-10875H is based on Comet Lake-H, also on a 14 nm process, but with a smaller 177.5 mm² die and a BGA 1440 socket.

Cache configurations differ notably. Both allocate 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the Xeon E5-1680 v4 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i7-10875H has 16 MB. That 4 MB difference is significant on paper, yet it did not translate into a benchmark advantage for the Xeon in the recorded tests.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a theoretical memory bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s, and it supports ECC memory. The Core i7-10875H is limited to dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The Xeon also provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, versus 16 lanes on the Core i7-10875H. The mobile chip includes integrated UHD Graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The clock strategy is reversed between the two. The Xeon runs a 3.40 GHz base clock with a 4.00 GHz boost, while the Core i7-10875H has a 2.30 GHz base clock but boosts much higher to 5.10 GHz. The Xeon's TDP is 140W, nearly three times higher than the Core i7-10875H's 45W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench results show a consistent pattern. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i7-10875H scores 1233 against the Xeon's 1217, a 1.3% lead. In single-core R15, the Core i7-10875H scores 174 versus 171, a 1.7% margin, which is the largest single-core advantage in the data set.

Cinebench R20 results follow the same trend. Multi-core shows 5138 for the Core i7-10875H versus 5073 for the Xeon, a 1.3% lead. Single-core shows 725 versus 716, a 1.2% advantage. Cinebench R23 repeats the pattern: multi-core at 12234 versus 12080, and single-core at 1727 versus 1705, both representing 1.3% leads for the mobile chip.

The data reveals that the Core i7-10875H never wins by a large margin, but it wins every single test. The narrow margins suggest that the Xeon's higher base clock and larger L3 cache nearly compensate for the Core i7's superior boost clock and newer architecture. However, the consistency of the results, with six wins out of six, indicates that the Core i7-10875H has a genuine, if modest, performance advantage in these workloads.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 has an average benchmark score of 3494, placing it in the 55th percentile of all CPUs. The Core i7-10875H averages 3432, in the 54th percentile. These averages are close, but they include different test suites, and the direct head-to-head comparisons are the more reliable indicator of relative performance.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the direct comparison?

A: The Intel Core i7-10875H wins all six head-to-head tests, including Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core modes. The Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 records zero wins.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core tests?

A: The Core i7-10875H leads by 1.3% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1.3% in R20 multi-core, and 1.3% in R23 multi-core. The Xeon scores 1217, 5073, and 12080 respectively, while the Core i7 scores 1233, 5138, and 12234.

Q: Does the Xeon's larger L3 cache help it in any benchmark?

A: No. Despite having 20 MB of shared L3 cache versus 16 MB on the Core i7-10875H, the Xeon E5-1680 v4 loses every recorded test. The data suggests the cache size difference does not overcome the Core i7's clock advantage.

Q: Can the Core i7-10875H be used in a desktop workstation motherboard?

A: No. The Core i7-10875H uses the Intel BGA 1440 socket, which is a mobile platform. The Xeon E5-1680 v4 uses Intel Socket 2011-3, which is a desktop workstation socket.

Q: What memory features does the Xeon offer that the Core i7 does not?

A: The Xeon E5-1680 v4 supports ECC memory and quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The Core i7-10875H supports only dual-channel DDR4 with 46.9 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC.

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Core i7-10875H boosts to 5.10 GHz, while the Xeon E5-1680 v4 boosts to 4.00 GHz. The Xeon has a higher base clock at 3.40 GHz versus 2.30 GHz.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-10875H wins in every benchmark category recorded: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core. Its advantage in single-core performance, up to 1.7% in Cinebench R15, suggests it handles lightly threaded tasks with slightly better responsiveness. The higher boost clock of 5.10 GHz likely drives this result. For applications that depend on single-thread speed, the data points to the Core i7-10875H.

The Xeon E5-1680 v4 does not win any raw performance test, but it wins on platform capabilities. It offers quad-channel memory with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth, which is 64% higher than the Core i7's dual-channel 46.9 GB/s. This matters for memory-intensive workloads like large database operations or scientific computing, even if the Cinebench results do not reflect it. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive enterprise workloads.

The Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 16 lanes on the Core i7-10875H. This allows the Xeon to support more expansion cards, GPUs, or NVMe storage devices directly from the CPU. The Core i7-10875H, with its integrated UHD Graphics, is better suited for a compact mobile system where discrete graphics are optional.

For a mobile workstation or gaming laptop, the Core i7-10875H is the obvious pick based on performance. For a stationary server or workstation that requires ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, and extensive PCIe connectivity, the Xeon E5-1680 v4 remains the only choice, despite its slower benchmark results.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1680 v4 | Intel Core i7-10875H |

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

| Architecture | Broadwell-EP | Comet Lake-H |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 246 mm² | 177.5 mm² |

| Transistors | 3,400 million | Not recorded |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.00 GHz | 5.10 GHz |

| TDP | 140W | 45W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel BGA 1440 |

| L3 Cache | 20 MB (shared) | 16 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 76.8 GB/s | 46.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Supported | Not supported |

| PCIe Lanes | Gen 3, 40 lanes | Gen 3, 16 lanes |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2016-06-19 | 2020-04-01 |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Launch MSRP | $1723 | $450 |