Intel Core i7-1195G7 vs Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data is remarkably consistent: the Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 wins every single Cinebench comparison, though by margins that are surprisingly narrow given the architectural gulf between the two parts. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Xeon’s advantage ranges from 4.6% to 4.8%, a tight band that suggests the two processors are fundamentally trading blows rather than one dominating the other.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 928 against the Core i7-1195G7’s 887, a 4.6% lead. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 131 versus 125, a 4.8% margin. Moving to R20, the Xeon posts 3869 versus 3697 in multi-core (4.7% ahead) and 546 versus 521 in single-core (4.8% ahead). The R23 results round out the sweep: 9212 versus 8803 in multi-core (4.6%) and 1300 versus 1242 in single-core (4.7%).

The consistency is striking. Every delta sits between 4.6% and 4.8%, which implies the performance gap is not workload-dependent in any meaningful way within the Cinebench suite. The Xeon wins the multi-threaded tests despite having three times the cores and three times the threads—12 cores and 24 threads versus 4 cores and 8 threads—which suggests the Core i7’s much higher clock speeds are doing substantial work to close the gap. The Core i7 boosts to 5.00 GHz versus the Xeon’s 2.80 GHz, and that frequency advantage appears to compensate for the massive core-count deficit in these particular benchmarks.

Neither processor posts a strong overall percentile. The Xeon sits at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i7 is at the 49th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 2664 and 2638, respectively, a difference of less than 1%. The rival comparisons reinforce this near-parity: the Xeon’s closest rival, the Intel Core i7-9750HF, scores 2662 (deltaPct 0.1%), while the Core i7-1195G7’s nearest rival, the Intel Core i9-8950HK, scores 2641 (deltaPct -0.1%). These two processors are, in aggregate benchmark terms, essentially equivalent.

That said, the Xeon’s wins are consistent and unambiguous. It wins all six head-to-head tests, recording 6 wins and 0 losses. Even in single-core workloads—traditionally the strong suit of high-frequency mobile parts—the Xeon edges ahead, albeit by less than 5%. The data does not support a narrative of the Core i7 being faster in any Cinebench scenario; rather, it shows the Xeon maintaining a slim but uniform advantage across the board.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and serve different markets, and their architectural specifications reflect that divergence. The Xeon E5-4650 v3 is a Haswell-EP server part built on Intel’s 22 nm process, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. It uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform and targets the server/workstation segment. The Core i7-1195G7, by contrast, is a Tiger Lake-U mobile chip fabricated on Intel’s 10 nm node, with a die size of 144 mm². It uses Intel BGA 1449 and is designed for mobile systems.

Core and thread counts differ dramatically. The Xeon offers 12 cores and 24 threads, while the Core i7 offers 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon’s base clock is 2.10 GHz with a boost of 2.80 GHz; the Core i7’s base is 2.90 GHz, boosting to 5.00 GHz. The Xeon has a TDP of 105 W, the Core i7 just 28 W. That power envelope difference explains much of the frequency gap: the Xeon is designed for sustained multi-core throughput in a server chassis, while the Core i7 is built for bursty, power-sensitive mobile workloads.

Cache hierarchies also differ. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 30 MB of shared L3. The Core i7 has 80 KB of L1 per core and 1.25 MB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3. Per-core L2 is substantially larger on the Core i7, which helps it feed its high-frequency cores. The Xeon’s 30 MB L3 is more than double the Core i7’s 12 MB, providing a larger shared pool for its 12 cores.

Memory support is another differentiator. The Xeon supports DDR4 over a quad-channel memory bus with a rated bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s and has ECC memory support. The Core i7 supports DDR4, LPDDR4, and LPDDR4X over a dual-channel bus, with no ECC support and no listed memory bandwidth figure. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7 provides Gen 4 with 16 lanes (CPU only). The Core i7 includes integrated Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU; the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The production status for both is end-of-life. The Xeon launched in 2015, the Core i7 in 2021. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $2838, while the Core i7’s was $426. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, recording 6 wins and 0 losses against the Core i7-1195G7.

Q: How large is the Xeon’s performance advantage?

A: The Xeon’s lead is consistently between 4.6% and 4.8% across all Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core and single-core tests.

Q: Does the Core i7’s higher clock speed help it win any tests?

A: No. Despite boosting to 5.00 GHz versus the Xeon’s 2.80 GHz, the Core i7 does not win any head-to-head benchmark. It loses even the single-core tests, with deltas of 4.7% to 4.8%.

Q: How do the two compare in overall average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 2664, while the Core i7 scores 2638. The Xeon sits at the 50th percentile of all CPUs, the Core i7 at the 49th.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each?

A: The Xeon E5-4650 v3 has 12 cores and 24 threads. The Core i7-1195G7 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the Core i7 does not.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a clear but nuanced picture. The Xeon E5-4650 v3 wins every head-to-head Cinebench test, but the margins are uniformly narrow—between 4.6% and 4.8%. This is not a case of one processor decisively outperforming the other; it is a case of a server part with triple the core count and triple the thread count barely edging out a mobile part with a much higher clock speed and a far lower power envelope.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon’s 12 cores and 24 threads should theoretically provide a massive advantage over the Core i7’s 4 cores and 8 threads. Yet the R23 multi-core score of 9212 versus 8803 is only a 4.6% gap. The Core i7’s 5.00 GHz boost clock is clearly compensating for its core deficit, and its 28 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 105 W TDP makes that frequency advantage all the more remarkable.

For single-threaded workloads, the results are even more telling. The Xeon wins R23 single-core with 1300 versus 1242, a 4.7% margin. The Core i7’s architectural advantages—a newer 10 nm process, larger per-core L2 cache, and a boost clock nearly double the Xeon’s—are not enough to overcome the Xeon’s lead, however slim.

The choice between these two depends entirely on platform requirements. The Xeon targets server and workstation deployments, with quad-channel DDR4, ECC memory support, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Core i7 targets mobile systems, with dual-channel memory, no ECC, integrated Iris Xe graphics, and 16 PCIe Gen 4 lanes. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $2838, the Core i7’s $426, but comparing prices across such different market segments is not meaningful.

The data supports a simple verdict: the Xeon is faster in every Cinebench test, but not by much. A system builder needing ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or 40 PCIe lanes has a clear reason to choose the Xeon. A mobile designer needing integrated graphics, a 28 W TDP, or PCIe Gen 4 has a clear reason to choose the Core i7. In raw compute terms, the Xeon wins—but the Core i7 makes the loss a close one.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 | Intel Core i7-1195G7 |

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

| Cores | 12 | 4 |

| Threads | 24 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.10 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.80 GHz | 5.00 GHz |

| TDP | 105 W | 28 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel BGA 1449 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Tiger Lake |

| Codename | Haswell-EP | Tiger Lake-U |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 10 nm |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 144 mm² |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | Not listed |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 80 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1.25 MB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | 30 MB (shared) | 12 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR4 | DDR4, LPDDR4, LPDDR4X |

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

| Memory Bandwidth | 68.3 GB/s | Not listed |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 4, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Iris Xe-LP Graphics G7 96EU |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $2838 | $426 |

| Part Number | SR22J | SRKSC |