Intel Core i7-1160G7 vs Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-1160G7 across all six recorded Cinebench tests. The margins are narrow but consistent, with the mobile Tiger Lake part edging out the older server Xeon in every single metric.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-1160G7 scores 740 against the Xeon E5-2628 v3's 723, a 2.4% advantage. The single-core R15 result shows 104 versus 102, a 2% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore gap widens slightly to 2.3% with scores of 3084 against 3015, while single-core shows 435 versus 425, a 2.4% difference. The R23 suite tells a similar story: multicore scores of 7343 versus 7179 represent a 2.3% margin, and single-core scores of 1036 versus 1013 again land at 2.3%.

What stands out here is not the size of the victory but its universality. The Xeon E5-2628 v3, despite having double the cores and double the threads, cannot overcome the architectural efficiency of the newer i7-1160G7. The data records six wins for the Core processor and zero for the Xeon.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The i7-1160G7 posts an average score of 2124, while the Xeon E5-2628 v3 averages 2076. That is a modest but real gap that persists across all workload types tested.

The percentile rankings also align, with both processors sitting at the 46th percentile among all CPUs in the database. That parity at the aggregate level, combined with the consistent head-to-head victories, suggests the i7-1160G7 is the stronger performer in these specific rendering workloads despite the Xeon's larger core count.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and serve different purposes. The Intel Core i7-1160G7 is built on Tiger Lake architecture, specifically the Tiger Lake-U codename, using a 10 nm process node. It is a mobile part with 4 cores and 8 threads, a base clock of 1200 MHz, and a boost clock of 4.40 GHz. Its thermal design power is rated at 15 watts.

The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3, by contrast, uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, on a 22 nm process node. It is a server and workstation part with 8 cores and 16 threads, a base clock of 2.50 GHz, and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Its thermal design power is 85 watts.

The cache configurations differ notably. The i7-1160G7 offers 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E5-2628 v3 provides 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a larger 20 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's die size is 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors, while the i7-1160G7 has a much smaller 144 mm² die.

Memory support further distinguishes them. The i7-1160G7 uses LPDDR4X memory in a dual-channel configuration with 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth and no ECC support. The Xeon E5-2628 v3 uses DDR4 memory in a quad-channel configuration with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth and supports ECC memory. PCIe capabilities also differ, with the i7-1160G7 offering Gen 4 with 4 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon E5-2628 v3 offers Gen 3 with 40 lanes.

The i7-1160G7 includes integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units, whereas the Xeon E5-2628 v3 has no integrated graphics at all. The sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1598 for the mobile chip, Intel Socket 2011-3 for the server chip.

Release dates also tell a story. The Xeon E5-2628 v3 launched in September 2014, while the i7-1160G7 arrived in September 2020. The Xeon carries the part number SR201; the i7-1160G7 is designated SRK0E. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

Given the head-to-head results, the i7-1160G7 wins every benchmark category recorded in the database. That includes multicore rendering in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, as well as single-core rendering in all three versions of the test.

The i7-1160G7's 2.3% to 2.4% margins in multicore tests are particularly notable because the Xeon has twice as many cores and threads. This suggests the Tiger Lake architecture's higher clock speeds and newer process node more than compensate for the core count deficit. In single-core tests, the i7-1160G7's 4.40 GHz boost clock versus the Xeon's 3.00 GHz boost clock provides a clear advantage.

The Xeon E5-2628 v3 does hold advantages in areas that the benchmark data does not directly measure. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for error-sensitive server workloads. It has a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, double the bandwidth of the i7-1160G7's dual-channel LPDDR4X at 34.1 GB/s. It also offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes versus 4 PCIe Gen 4 lanes on the i7-1160G7.

For users who need massive memory bandwidth or extensive PCIe connectivity for expansion cards, storage controllers, or network adapters, the Xeon platform provides capabilities the mobile chip cannot match. The Xeon also has a larger shared L3 cache at 20 MB versus 12 MB.

However, in the specific rendering workloads measured by Cinebench, the i7-1160G7 is the clear winner. The data does not show any benchmark category where the Xeon outperforms the Core processor.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to the Intel Core i7-1160G7 as the stronger processor for Cinebench rendering workloads. It wins all six head-to-head tests with margins ranging from 2% to 2.4%. Its average benchmark score of 2124 exceeds the Xeon's 2076, and it achieves this with far lower power consumption, a 15 watt TDP versus 85 watts.

The i7-1160G7 is the pick for users prioritizing single-threaded performance, clock speed, and energy efficiency. Its 4.40 GHz boost clock and Tiger Lake architecture deliver superior results per core, making it well suited for lightly threaded applications and mobile computing scenarios.

The Xeon E5-2628 v3 remains relevant for specific server and workstation use cases that depend on features not captured in these benchmarks. ECC memory support, quad-channel memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes make it a more capable platform for enterprise deployments, virtualization hosts, or memory-intensive database workloads.

For pure rendering performance as measured by Cinebench, the data is unambiguous: the i7-1160G7 is faster in every test. The Xeon's 8 cores and 16 threads do not translate into a win because the i7-1160G7's higher clocks and newer architecture overcome the core deficit.

The recommendation depends on the workload. Choose the i7-1160G7 for general computing, mobile platforms, and rendering tasks. Choose the Xeon E5-2628 v3 for server environments that require ECC memory, high memory bandwidth, or extensive PCIe expansion. For everything measured in this comparison, the i7-1160G7 wins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i7-1160G7 scores 7343 against the Xeon E5-2628 v3's 7179, a 2.3% advantage.

Q: How many cores does each processor have?

A: The Intel Core i7-1160G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-1160G7 does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon E5-2628 v3 has a quad-channel memory bus with 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The i7-1160G7 has a dual-channel bus with 34.1 GB/s.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each CPU?

A: The Intel Core i7-1160G7 has an average benchmark score of 2124. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has an average benchmark score of 2076.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-1160G7 includes Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 with 96 execution units. The Intel Xeon E5-2628 v3 has no integrated graphics.