Intel Core i7-2760QM vs Intel Xeon W3580 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-2760QM wins every multi-core benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. It leads by 14.8% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (3631 vs 3092), 14.9% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1525 vs 1298), and 15% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (366 vs 311).

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

A: The Core i7-2760QM also dominates single-core tests. It scores 512 vs 436 in Cinebench R23 single-core and 215 vs 183 in Cinebench R20 single-core, both representing a 14.8–14.9% advantage over the Xeon W3580.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Xeon W3580 has an average benchmark score of 1064, while the Core i7-2760QM sits slightly lower at 1057. Both processors occupy the 29th percentile among all CPUs.

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

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads. However, their underlying architectures differ significantly, which contributes to the performance gap.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon W3580 supports ECC memory, a feature common in server and workstation parts. The Core i7-2760QM does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the release dates for these two processors?

A: The Xeon W3580 was released in August 2009, while the Core i7-2760QM came later in September 2011.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon W3580 and Core i7-2760QM represent two distinct generations of Intel silicon. The Xeon W3580 is built on the Nehalem architecture with the Bloomfield codename, manufactured on a 45 nm process node at Intel's foundry. This design uses 731 million transistors across a 263 mm² die. In contrast, the Core i7-2760QM belongs to the Sandy Bridge architecture, also codenamed Sandy Bridge, fabricated on a more advanced 32 nm process. This newer node packs 1,160 million transistors into a smaller 216 mm² die, demonstrating a significant density improvement.

Cache configurations also differ between the two. Both allocate 64 KB of L1 cache and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache differs: the Xeon W3580 offers 8 MB of shared L3, while the Core i7-2760QM provides 6 MB. The reduction in L3 capacity on the newer part is offset by architectural efficiency gains from Sandy Bridge.

Memory support marks another clear divergence. The Xeon W3580 uses a triple-channel DDR3 memory bus, a configuration typical of workstation platforms. The Core i7-2760QM, aimed at mobile systems, employs a dual-channel DDR3 bus. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but absent on the Core i7. The Xeon also features PCIe Gen 2 connectivity, while the Core i7's PCIe specification is not listed in the data.

Integrated graphics further separate the two: the Core i7-2760QM includes Intel HD 3000 graphics, whereas the Xeon W3580 has no integrated graphics at all. The market segments reflect these design choices: the Xeon is a server/workstation part, while the Core i7 targets mobile platforms. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SLBET for the Xeon and SR02R for the Core i7.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Core i7-2760QM wins all five benchmark comparisons, with the Xeon W3580 trailing by roughly 15% in every test. The closest margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Core i7's 3631 score beats the Xeon's 3092 by 14.8%. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Core i7 scores 366 versus the Xeon's 311, a 15% delta.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Core i7-2760QM posts 215 against the Xeon's 183, a 14.9% advantage. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Core i7 at 512 and the Xeon at 436, again a 14.8% gap. These consistent deltas across both multi-core and single-core tests indicate that the Core i7's architectural lead is uniform rather than workload-specific.

It is importantly the Xeon W3580's older Nehalem design, despite its higher base clock of 3.33 GHz versus the Core i7's 2.40 GHz, cannot overcome the efficiency gains of Sandy Bridge. The Core i7's boost clock of 3.50 GHz is only slightly below the Xeon's 3.60 GHz, but the newer architecture extracts more performance per clock. The 45 nm process on the Xeon generates more heat, reflected in its 130 W TDP, whereas the Core i7's 32 nm process and 45 W TDP allow for a more power-efficient design that still delivers superior results.

The data shows that the Core i7-2760QM is not merely faster; it is consistently faster by nearly the same margin across every recorded benchmark. This uniformity suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a quirk of any single test. The Xeon W3580's sole distinction is its triple-channel memory bus and ECC support, but these features do not translate into better Cinebench scores.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W3580 | Intel Core i7-2760QM |

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

| Base Clock | 3.33 GHz | 2.40 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| TDP | 130 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel BGA 1224 |

| Architecture | Nehalem (Bloomfield) | Sandy Bridge |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 32 nm |

| Transistors | 731 million | 1,160 million |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 216 mm² |

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

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Not listed |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 3000 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | August 2009 | September 2011 |

| Part Number | SLBET | SR02R |

The specification table highlights several trade-offs. The Xeon W3580 has higher base and boost clocks, a larger L3 cache, triple-channel memory, and ECC support. The Core i7-2760QM counters with a more advanced process node, lower TDP, integrated graphics, and a smaller die. Both processors share 4 cores, 8 threads, and identical per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes. Neither offers an unlocked multiplier.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear winner: the Intel Core i7-2760QM outperforms the Intel Xeon W3580 in every measured category. With a 14.8–15% lead across multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests, the Core i7's Sandy Bridge architecture delivers superior performance despite its lower base clock and smaller L3 cache. This makes the Core i7 the better choice for users prioritizing raw compute throughput in Cinebench-style workloads.

The Xeon W3580 retains relevance only in scenarios that specifically require its unique features: ECC memory support and triple-channel memory bandwidth. These capabilities serve server and workstation environments where data integrity and memory throughput are critical. However, the data shows no performance benefit from these features in the benchmarks recorded.

For a mobile platform, the Core i7-2760QM is the obvious pick. Its 45 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops, whereas the Xeon's 130 W TDP is impractical for such use. The Core i7 also includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic configurations. The Xeon's lack of integrated graphics and server-oriented socket further limit its applicability outside workstation builds.

Given that both processors occupy the same 29th percentile among all CPUs and have nearly identical average benchmark scores (1064 vs 1057), the overall performance class is similar. Yet within this class, the Core i7-2760QM is consistently faster. The Xeon W3580's higher clock speeds cannot offset the architectural efficiency of Sandy Bridge.

Users with existing Intel Socket 1366 platforms may find the Xeon W3580 a drop-in upgrade, but new system builders should favor the Core i7-2760QM. The data does not support choosing the Xeon for performance reasons; its advantages lie entirely in memory and ECC features. For general-purpose computing, the Core i7-2760QM is the superior processor in this comparison.