Intel Core i7-2630QM vs Intel Xeon W3565 Comparison

# Intel Core i7-2630QM vs Intel Xeon W3565: Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data places the Intel Core i7-2630QM and the Intel Xeon W3565 in a close contest, with the mobile Core i7 taking a narrow but consistent lead across all recorded multi-threaded tests. In five head-to-head comparisons, the i7-2630QM wins all five, with deltas ranging from 4.6% to 4.8%. The Xeon W3565, while not ahead in any test, remains within a small margin of the Core i7 in every workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The largest single win for the Core i7-2630QM comes in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where it scores 304 against the Xeon's 290, a 4.8% advantage. The same 4.8% margin appears in the Cinebench R23 multi-core run, with scores of 3020 and 2888 respectively.

The single-core tests show an identical pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i7-2630QM scores 178 versus 170 for the Xeon, a 4.7% edge. The Cinebench R23 single-core result is 426 against 407, again 4.7% ahead. The Geekbench multi-core result, 1393 versus 1390, narrows the gap to a 0.2% difference, the closest contest in the entire comparison.

The Xeon W3565 never takes a single win across the five recorded bench tests. Its best showing is in Geekbench multi-core, where it trails by only 0.2%. The data shows a consistent, albeit modest, performance advantage for the mobile Core i7 part.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i7-2630QM wins in all recorded multi-core tests. It leads by 4.6% in Cinebench R15 and R23, and by 0.2% in Geekbench multi-core, where the score is 1393 versus 1000.

Q: How do these CPUs compare in single-threaded tests?

A: The Core i7-2630QM also wins every single-core test. It records a 4.7% advantage in both Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core runs, scoring 178 and 426 versus 170 and 407.

Q: What is the average benchmark score of each CPU?

A: The Core i7-2630QM averages 1005 across all tests, identical to its nearest rival, the Core i7-5600U, and 0.1% above the AMD FX-9830P and the Core i7-880. The Xeon W3565 averages 993, 0.1% below the Core i7-965.

Q: Are these chips equal in multi-core performance?

A: No. The Core i7-2630QM is consistently ahead, but the margins are small. The largest delta is 4.8%, and the smallest is 0.2%, so the Xeon W3565 is always within reach.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations. The Core i7-2630QM is a Sandy Bridge part, built on a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The Xeon W3565 is a Bloomfield part built on 45 nm with 731 million transistors and a 263 mm² die.

Both CPUs have 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core i7 carries 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and a larger 8 MB L3 cache. The Xeon also supports triple-channel DDR3 memory and has ECC memory enabled, while the Core i7 has dual-channel memory support.

The integrated graphics differ. The Core i7 includes Intel HD 3000 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The Core i7 uses Socket G2 (988B), while the Xeon uses Socket 1366. The Core i7 is marked for the mobile segment; the Xeon is a server and workstation part.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple decision: the Core i7-2630QM wins every single head-to-head test in this database, and by margins between 4.6 and 4.8 percent in most tests. The Xeon W3565 is not ahead in any workload, but its 8 MB L3 cache and ECC triple-channel memory support position it a server and workstation part. For the mobile market segment, the Core i7-2630QM is the better fit. For a workstation or server part with ECC memory and a larger L3, the Xeon W3565 is the appropriate choice, despite its slightly lower average benchmark score.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several specification fields. The Core i7-2630QM has a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost of 2.90 GHz. The Xeon W3565 starts at 3.20 GHz and boosts to 3.47 GHz. The Core i7 has a TDP of 45 W; the Xeon has a TDP of 130 W.

The Core i7 is built on a 32 nm node, compared to 45 nm for the Xeon. Transistor count is 1,160 million on a 216 mm² die for the Core i7, versus 731 million on 263 mm² for the Xeon. The Core i7 has 6 MB of shared L3, while the Xeon has 8 MB. L1 and L2 are the same: 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core.

Memory support is split: the Core i7 supports dual-channel DDR3, while the Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 with ECC. Neither processor has PCIe listed in the database. The Core i7 includes Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. The Core i7 targets the mobile segment; the Xeon targets the server and workstation segment.

Where Each One Wins

Cinebench R15 multi-core: Core i7-2630QM wins, 304 vs 290, a 4.8% margin.

Cinebench R20 multi-core: Core i7-2630QM wins, 1268 vs 1212, 4.6% ahead.

Cinebench R20 single-core: Core i7-2630QM wins, 178 vs 170, 4.7% ahead.

Cinebench R23 multi-core: Core i7-2630QM wins, 3020 vs 2888, a 4.6% margin.

Cinebench R23 single-core: Core i7-2630QM wins, 426 vs 407, 4.7% ahead.

Geekbench multi-core: Core i7-2630QM wins, 1393 vs 1000, a 0.2% margin.

The Core i7-2630QM wins every head-to-head test in this database. The Xeon W3565 never scores a single win, but it remains within 0.1% to 4.8% in all tests. For a mobile-oriented chip, the Core i7 is the faster part in this comparison. For a server and workstation-oriented Xeon, the part is the right choice, and its performance deficit is small.