Intel Core i7-2670QM vs Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results present a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins every single head-to-head comparison, and does so by nearly identical margins. Across five Cinebench tests, the Xeon’s advantage over the Core i7-2670QM hovers tightly between 19.4% and 19.7%, suggesting a systematic performance gap rather than test-specific quirks.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 382 against the i7’s 320, a 19.4% lead. The R20 multi-core test shows 1595 versus 1334, a 19.6% gap. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R20 single-core has the Xeon at 225 versus 188 (19.7% ahead), and R23 single-core shows 536 versus 448 (19.6% ahead). The largest absolute difference comes in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon’s 3798 dwarfs the i7’s 3177 by 621 points, again a 19.5% margin.

What is striking is the uniformity of these deltas. Whether the workload scales across all cores or stresses a single thread, the Xeon maintains almost exactly the same percentage advantage. This suggests the performance gap is fundamental to the two designs’ per-clock efficiency and sustained operating characteristics, not something that workload type can overcome. The i7-2670QM’s boost clock of 3.10 GHz does not rescue it in single-threaded tests, where the Xeon’s fixed 2.80 GHz still wins by nearly 20%. The data implies the Xeon’s Haswell architecture delivers substantially more instructions per clock than the older Sandy Bridge design, and that advantage persists across every benchmark.

Notably, the average benchmark scores tell a similar story: the Xeon averages 1098, while the i7 sits at 1096. Their nearest rivals include Intel Core i7-2710QE at 1096 (a 0.1% delta from the Xeon, and 0% from the i7), and AMD PRO A10-8850B at 1098 (0% delta from the Xeon). Both CPUs occupy the 31st percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are statistically indistinguishable in overall standing despite the Xeon’s consistent head-to-head wins. This paradox — clear per-test dominance yet identical aggregate percentiles — indicates that the broader CPU landscape has many entries clustered around this performance tier.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel’s design roadmap. The Xeon E5-1603 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, built on a 22 nm process node. The Core i7-2670QM uses Sandy Bridge, fabricated on a larger 32 nm process. This process difference helps explain the Xeon’s efficiency: it packs 2,600 million transistors into a 356 mm² die, while the i7 uses 1,160 million transistors across 216 mm². The Xeon crams over twice the transistor count into a die that is only about 65% larger.

Cache configurations diverge significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache differs: the Xeon offers 10 MB shared, while the i7 has 6 MB shared. This 4 MB L3 advantage gives the Xeon more room for frequently accessed data, which likely contributes to its consistent per-clock lead.

Core and thread counts present an interesting inversion. The Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads — no hyper-threading. The i7 has 4 cores and 8 threads, doubling its logical thread count. Despite having half the threads, the Xeon still wins multi-core benchmarks by nearly 20%. This suggests the Xeon’s per-core throughput is so much higher that it overcomes the i7’s hyper-threading advantage. The i7’s threads help it narrow the gap, but not enough to match the Xeon’s architectural superiority.

Memory subsystems differ substantially. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The i7 uses dual-channel DDR3 (memory support is listed as null, but the dual-channel bus is specified) with no bandwidth figure provided. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth is a clear advantage for memory-intensive workloads. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i7, reflecting their different market positions: the Xeon targets server/workstation duty, while the i7 is a mobile part.

Socket and platform differences reinforce their separate identities. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, the i7 uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). The Xeon provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the i7 has no PCIe specification listed. The i7 includes integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon carries a 140 W TDP, while the i7 draws just 45 W — a massive difference that reflects the Xeon’s workstation orientation versus the i7’s mobile efficiency focus.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1603 v3 wins everywhere in the benchmark suite, but its victories carry different implications for different use cases. In multi-threaded rendering workloads, such as Cinebench R15 and R23 multi-core, the Xeon’s 19.4% and 19.5% leads respectively demonstrate its capability for sustained all-core compute. This is noteworthy because the i7 has twice the thread count; the Xeon’s raw per-core power more than compensates.

For single-threaded tasks — Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core — the Xeon leads by 19.7% and 19.6%. This consistency means the Xeon wins in lightly threaded applications like legacy software, spreadsheet calculations, or older games that rely on one or two cores. The i7’s boost clock of 3.10 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon’s fixed 2.80 GHz, does not help; the Xeon’s newer architecture delivers better performance at a lower clock.

The i7-2670QM’s only theoretical advantages lie outside the benchmark results. Its integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics provide a display output and basic GPU acceleration, something the Xeon entirely lacks. The i7’s 45 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops and compact systems, whereas the Xeon’s 140 W TDP demands serious cooling and a workstation-class power delivery system. The i7’s dual-channel memory bus, while narrower than the Xeon’s quad-channel, is simpler and cheaper to implement.

In practical terms, the Xeon wins every compute benchmark. The i7 wins on platform flexibility — it can power a laptop with no discrete GPU, while the Xeon requires a separate graphics card for any display output. But for pure processing throughput, the data shows no scenario where the i7 outperforms the Xeon.

FAQ

Q: How much faster is the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 than the Core i7-2670QM in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon leads by 19.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (382 versus 320), 19.6% in R20 multi-core (1595 versus 1334), and 19.5% in R23 multi-core (3798 versus 3177).

Q: Does the Core i7-2670QM win any benchmark?

A: No. Across the five head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Xeon wins all five. The i7 has zero wins in the head-to-head data.

Q: Why does the i7-2670QM have more threads but lose multi-core tests?

A: The i7 has 8 threads versus the Xeon’s 4, but the Xeon’s Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process delivers higher per-core performance. The Xeon also has a larger 10 MB shared L3 cache versus 6 MB, helping it maintain a roughly 19.5% lead despite fewer threads.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4 memory with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth. The i7 uses dual-channel memory with no bandwidth figure listed. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not.

Q: Are these CPUs comparable in overall performance rankings?

A: Both sit at the 31st percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 1098 for the Xeon and 1096 for the i7. Both have nearest rivals within 0.2% of their average scores, including the AMD PRO A10-8850B and Intel Core i7-2710QE.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i7-2670QM has integrated graphics (Intel HD 3000). The Xeon E5-1603 v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate GPU for display output.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 | Intel Core i7-2670QM |

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

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost clock | None | 3.10 GHz |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| TDP | 140 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 2011-3 | Intel Socket G2 (988B) |

| Architecture | Haswell (Haswell-EP) | Sandy Bridge |

| Process node | 22 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | 1,160 million |

| Die size | 356 mm² | 216 mm² |

| L3 cache | 10 MB shared | 6 MB shared |

| Memory support | DDR4 | Not specified |

| Memory bus | Quad-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | Not specified |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) | Not specified |

| Integrated graphics | None | Intel HD 3000 |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release date | 2014-09-07 | 2011-10-11 |

| Part number | SR20K | SR02N |

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the superior processor for raw compute performance. It wins every benchmark by a consistent margin of roughly 19.5%, whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded. Its larger L3 cache, newer architecture, quad-channel DDR4 memory, and ECC support make it the more capable part for serious workstation and server tasks. The 140 W TDP and lack of integrated graphics signal that it belongs in a desktop workstation with a discrete GPU, not a compact mobile system.

The Core i7-2670QM’s case rests on platform attributes rather than benchmark scores. Its 45 W TDP, integrated Intel HD 3000 graphics, and mobile socket make it the only viable choice for a laptop or low-power system. Its 8 threads and 3.10 GHz boost clock are notable, but they do not translate into any benchmark victory against the Xeon. For users who need a processor that can fit in a mobile chassis with no discrete graphics, the i7 is the functional option. For anyone who needs maximum processing throughput and has the power budget to accommodate a 140 W chip, the Xeon is demonstrably faster in every measured test.

Given that both CPUs occupy the same 31st percentile and have near-identical average scores (1098 versus 1096), the choice ultimately hinges on platform requirements. If the workload demands ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, or PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes, the Xeon is mandatory. If the priority is low power consumption and integrated graphics in a mobile form factor, the i7 is the only option that fits. But on pure processing capability, the Xeon E5-1603 v3 is the undisputed winner, delivering a 19.4% to 19.7% advantage across all five head-to-head benchmarks.