Intel Core i7-2635QM vs Intel Xeon X3470 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 has a base clock of 2.93 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-2635QM runs at 2.00 GHz. The Xeon also boosts higher, reaching 3.60 GHz compared to the Core i7's 2.90 GHz.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread count?

A: Yes, both the Intel Core i7-2635QM and the Intel Xeon X3470 feature 4 cores and 8 threads, making them equivalent in parallel thread capacity.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-2635QM does not. This is a key differentiator for workstation and server reliability requirements.

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-2635QM wins in every recorded single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 177 versus 169 for the Xeon, a 4.7% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 422 versus 403, also 4.7% ahead.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i7-2635QM has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-2635QM has an average benchmark score of 995, while the Intel Xeon X3470 averages 983. The Core i7 sits at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon is at the 26th percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and manufacturing generations. The Intel Core i7-2635QM is built on Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process node, while the Intel Xeon X3470 uses Nehalem architecture (codename Lynnfield) on a 45 nm process. This generational gap is reflected in transistor counts and die sizes: the Core i7 packs 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die, whereas the Xeon has 774 million transistors on a larger 296 mm² die.

The process advantage gives the Core i7 a smaller physical footprint and lower power draw. The mobile chip has a TDP of 45 watts, while the server-class Xeon draws 95 watts. This makes the Core i7 substantially more efficient per watt, a critical factor for its mobile market segment.

Cache hierarchies differ in total capacity. Both share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) design, but the Xeon X3470 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 6 MB on the Core i7-2635QM. That extra 2 MB of L3 could benefit workloads with larger working sets, though benchmark results suggest the Core i7's architectural improvements offset this disadvantage.

Memory support also separates the two. The Xeon X3470 explicitly supports DDR3 memory with a measured bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s and dual-channel memory bus. The Core i7-2635QM also uses a dual-channel memory bus, but the database does not list a specific memory bandwidth figure or memory support type for it. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the Core i7 does not, making the Xeon the better fit for error-sensitive server environments.

The Core i7-2635QM includes integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics, while the Xeon X3470 has no integrated graphics. This means the mobile chip can drive a display without a discrete GPU, whereas the Xeon requires a separate graphics card.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The Core i7-2635QM uses Intel BGA 1224, a soldered mobile socket, while the Xeon X3470 uses Intel Socket 1156, a standard LGA socket for desktop and workstation motherboards. The Xeon also supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while no PCIe information is recorded for the Core i7.

Release timing favors the Xeon historically: it launched on September 7, 2009, while the Core i7-2635QM arrived on January 2, 2011. Both are end-of-life products. The Xeon had a launch MSRP of $589, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core i7.

The Verdict

The benchmark data consistently favors the Intel Core i7-2635QM across every recorded test. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 4.7% to 4.9%. The largest advantage appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Core i7 scores 301 versus 287 for the Xeon, a 4.9% lead. The other multicore tests show nearly identical margins: 4.8% in Cinebench R20 multicore and 4.8% in Cinebench R23 multicore.

The Core i7 also holds a slight edge in average benchmark score, 995 versus 983, and sits one percentile higher in the overall CPU ranking (27th versus 26th). Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-2920XM and AMD Opteron 4226, both at identical average scores of 995. The Xeon X3470's nearest rival, the Intel Core i3-4370T, also scores 983.

For users choosing between these two, the Core i7-2635QM is the stronger performer in rendering and compute workloads, as measured by Cinebench. Its lower TDP (45 watts versus 95 watts) and integrated graphics make it suitable for mobile or compact systems. However, the Xeon X3470 brings ECC memory support and a larger 8 MB L3 cache, which matter for server and workstation reliability. If ECC is a hard requirement, the Xeon is the only option here. Otherwise, the data points to the Core i7 as the faster chip.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-2635QM | Intel Xeon X3470 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.00 GHz | 2.93 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1224 | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Architecture | Sandy Bridge | Nehalem |

| Codename | Sandy Bridge | Lynnfield |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | 1,160 million | 774 million |

| Die Size | 216 mm² | 296 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | Not recorded | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 21.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Not recorded | Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 3000 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2011-01-02 | 2009-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $589 |

| Part Number | SR030 | SLBJH |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-2635QM wins every recorded comparison. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core i7 scores 301 against the Xeon's 287, a 4.9% advantage. This is the largest single delta in the dataset.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern, with the Core i7 at 1257 and the Xeon at 1199, a 4.8% margin. The single-core variant of the same test has the Core i7 at 177 versus 169, a 4.7% lead. Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the 4.8% margin with scores of 2995 and 2857. Finally, Cinebench R23 single-core gives the Core i7 a 422 to 403 result, another 4.7% advantage.

These consistent margins across different Cinebench versions indicate that the Core i7's architectural efficiency from Sandy Bridge outweighs the Xeon's higher clock speeds. The Xeon runs at 2.93 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, substantially higher than the Core i7's 2.00 GHz base and 2.90 GHz boost, yet it still loses all tests. The 32 nm process and newer microarchitecture of the Core i7 deliver better instructions per clock, compensating for the clock deficit.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Core i7-2635QM averages 995, while the Xeon X3470 averages 983, a 1.2% overall difference. Both processors sit near the same percentile (27th vs 26th), meaning they occupy a similar tier in the overall CPU landscape, but the Core i7 consistently edges ahead in compute benchmarks.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-2635QM wins in every measured benchmark category. Its advantages are most pronounced in multicore rendering workloads, where it leads by 4.8% to 4.9% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests. The single-core tests show slightly smaller but still consistent leads of 4.7%.

The Core i7 also wins on efficiency. Its 45 watt TDP is less than half the Xeon's 95 watt TDP, making it the superior choice for thermally constrained environments or systems where power consumption matters. The integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics add further utility for systems that do not require a discrete GPU, enabling basic display output without additional hardware.

The Intel Xeon X3470 wins in specific server-oriented features rather than raw performance. It supports ECC memory, which the Core i7 does not, making it the appropriate choice for systems where memory error correction is critical. Its 8 MB L3 cache is 2 MB larger than the Core i7's 6 MB, potentially benefiting workloads with larger repeated data access patterns. The Xeon also has higher clock speeds, 2.93 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, though the benchmark data shows this does not translate into performance wins in the recorded tests.

The Xeon's Socket 1156 compatibility and PCIe Gen 2 support with 16 CPU lanes make it more suitable for traditional workstation motherboards, while the Core i7's BGA 1224 socket is soldered and mobile-oriented. For users building a server or workstation with ECC requirements, the Xeon X3470 is the only viable choice between these two. For all other compute workloads as measured here, the Core i7-2635QM delivers faster results with lower power consumption.