Intel Core i7-2720QM vs Intel Xeon D-1518 Comparison

Intel Xeon D-1518 and Intel Core i7-2720QM are both quad-core, eight-thread processors, yet they serve entirely different eras and purposes. Benchmark data shows the Xeon D-1518 winning all five head-to-head comparisons, with Cinebench deltas of 13.4% to 13.5% across the board. The Core i7-2720QM, however, posts a higher average benchmark score of 1128 versus 1121, a discrepancy explained by its inclusion of Geekbench tests where the Xeon has no entries. This page breaks down where each chip stands, based strictly on the data.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon D-1518 is the outright performance winner in every shared benchmark. Its five head-to-head victories are conclusive, with the smallest margin being 13.4% in Cinebench R15 multicore and R20 multicore/singlecore, and the largest at 13.5% in R23 tests. For any workload measured by Cinebench — rendering, multi-threaded compute, or single-thread responsiveness — the Xeon D-1518 is the clear choice from the data.

The Core i7-2720QM, despite being older (release date 2011-01-02 versus 2015-03-08), holds its own in average score due to Geekbench results. Its Geekbench multicore score of 1535 and singlecore score of 484 are not matched by any Xeon D-1518 benchmark in the pack, meaning the i7 has a measurable advantage in those specific tests. The data shows the i7-2720QM is competitive in Geekbench-style workloads, but lacks the Cinebench muscle of the Xeon.

For a server or workstation buyer, the Xeon D-1518 is the only rational pick: it wins all Cinebench tests, supports ECC memory, and is rated for a lower 35W TDP versus 45W. For a mobile user with legacy software that relies on Geekbench metrics, the i7-2720QM offers a different profile, though its end-of-life status and lack of ECC support limit its appeal. The verdict is simple: take the Xeon D-1518 for raw compute in Cinebench; consider the i7-2720QM only if Geekbench-specific results are your priority.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different Intel nodes. The Xeon D-1518 uses a 14 nm Broadwell process (Broadwell-DE generation), packing 3,200 million transistors into a 246 mm² die. The Core i7-2720QM uses a 32 nm Sandy Bridge process (Core i7 Sandy Bridge generation), with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The Xeon's node advantage is stark: roughly three times the transistor count in a slightly larger package, enabling more modern logic.

Cache structures differ significantly. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the Xeon D-1518 provides 1.5 MB L3 per core, while the i7-2720QM offers 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's per-core L3 design totals 6 MB across four cores, matching the i7's shared pool, but the distribution is distinct. This impacts how cache is allocated under multi-threaded loads.

Connectivity and platform features are major separators. The Xeon D-1518 supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory, includes ECC memory, and offers PCIe Gen 3 with 24 lanes (CPU only). The i7-2720QM has no listed memory support or PCIe data, no ECC capability, but includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 3000) — a feature absent from the Xeon. The Xeon targets server/workstation duties, while the i7 is a mobile part (Intel BGA 1224 socket versus BGA 1667).

Production status tells the story: the Xeon D-1518 is Active, while the i7-2720QM is End-of-life. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $193, a figure not available for the i7. Both have locked multipliers and lack boost clock data for the Xeon (null), while the i7 lists a 3.30 GHz boost. The Xeon's base clock is 2.20 GHz, identical to the i7's base.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon D-1518 wins exclusively in Cinebench tests. Its five wins are: Cinebench R15 multicore (390 vs 344), R20 multicore (1628 vs 1435), R20 singlecore (229 vs 202), R23 multicore (3877 vs 3417), and R23 singlecore (547 vs 482). Each victory carries a 13.4% or 13.5% delta, showing consistent superiority across both multi-threaded and single-threaded rendering workloads. This suggests the Xeon's newer architecture yields better per-clock performance despite identical base clocks.

The Core i7-2720QM wins only in Geekbench tests, where the Xeon has no recorded scores. Its Geekbench multicore score is 1535, and singlecore is 484. The i7 also has a higher average benchmark score (1128 vs 1121), driven by these Geekbench results that are absent from the Xeon's benchmark list. The i7's boost clock of 3.30 GHz likely contributes to its Geekbench singlecore showing, though the Xeon has no boost clock data to compare.

Use-case split: for rendering, video encoding, or any Cinebench-based workload, the Xeon D-1518 is decisively ahead. For Geekbench-style synthetic tests — common in general system evaluation — the i7-2720QM has a data-supported edge, though this edge is not measurable against the Xeon since the Xeon lacks those scores. The i7 also offers integrated graphics, making it viable for systems without a discrete GPU, while the Xeon requires external graphics.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-2720QM has a higher average benchmark score of 1128, versus the Intel Xeon D-1518's 1121. This difference is attributed to the i7's Geekbench scores, which the Xeon does not have.

Q: Does the Xeon D-1518 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon D-1518 supports ECC memory (eccMemory: true). The Core i7-2720QM does not support ECC (eccMemory: false).

Q: What is the largest performance delta between the two in head-to-head tests?

A: The largest delta is 13.5%, seen in Cinebench R23 multicore (Xeon 3877 vs i7 3417) and Cinebench R23 singlecore (Xeon 547 vs i7 482). All other head-to-head tests show a 13.4% delta.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-2720QM includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 3000). The Intel Xeon D-1518 has no integrated graphics listed (null).

Q: How do the process nodes compare?

A: The Xeon D-1518 is built on a 14 nm process with 3,200 million transistors, while the i7-2720QM uses a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors. The Xeon's node is significantly more advanced.

Q: Are both processors the same generation?

A: No, they are not. The Xeon D-1518 is from the Xeon D (Broadwell-DE) generation, released in 2015. The i7-2720QM is from the Core i7 (Sandy Bridge) generation, released in 2011.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon D-1518 dominates every shared benchmark, and the margins are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 390 against the i7's 344, a 13.4% advantage. This pattern repeats exactly in Cinebench R20 multicore (1628 vs 1435, 13.4%) and R20 singlecore (229 vs 202, 13.4%). The consistency suggests the Xeon's architectural efficiency — from its 14 nm process and newer Broadwell design — delivers a stable performance uplift across different Cinebench versions.

The largest deltas appear in Cinebench R23 tests. Multicore sees the Xeon at 3877 versus the i7's 3417, a 13.5% gap. Singlecore follows at 547 vs 482, also 13.5%. These are the biggest wins for the Xeon, showing that the newest Cinebench version amplifies its advantage slightly. Notably, the Xeon achieves this without a boost clock (null), relying solely on its 2.20 GHz base, while the i7 can boost to 3.30 GHz. This implies the Xeon's per-clock efficiency is far superior in Cinebench workloads.

The i7-2720QM's only wins come from tests where the Xeon has no data. Geekbench multicore (1535) and singlecore (484) are exclusively i7 scores. Without Xeon results, these cannot be compared head-to-head, but they contribute to the i7's higher average benchmark score (1128 vs 1121). The data shows the i7 is not competitive in Cinebench, but its Geekbench presence fills a measurement gap. In total, the Xeon wins 5 head-to-head tests, and the i7 wins 0.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs diverge on nearly every specification field. Process node: 14 nm (Xeon) versus 32 nm (i7). Transistors: 3,200 million (Xeon) versus 1,160 million (i7). Die size: 246 mm² (Xeon) versus 216 mm² (i7). Cache L3: 1.5 MB per core (Xeon) versus 6 MB shared (i7). Memory support: DDR3 and DDR4 (Xeon) versus null (i7). ECC memory: true (Xeon) versus false (i7). PCIe: Gen 3, 24 lanes (Xeon) versus null (i7). Integrated graphics: null (Xeon) versus Intel HD 3000 (i7).

Socket and platform: Intel BGA 1667 (Xeon) versus Intel BGA 1224 (i7). Market segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) versus Mobile (i7). Production status: Active (Xeon) versus End-of-life (i7). Release date: 2015-03-08 (Xeon) versus 2011-01-02 (i7). Launch MSRP: $193 (Xeon) versus null (i7). Boost clock: null (Xeon) versus 3.30 GHz (i7). Base clock is identical at 2.20 GHz for both.

TDP differs: 35W (Xeon) versus 45W (i7). Part numbers: SR2DN (Xeon) versus SR00W (i7). Both have 4 cores, 8 threads, dual-channel memory bus, and locked multipliers. The Xeon's smaller process node and lower TDP, combined with ECC support and PCIe Gen 3, make it the more modern and capable server part. The i7's integrated graphics and higher boost clock serve its mobile origins. No other specification fields differ between the two.