Intel Core i7-2860QM vs Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a surprisingly consistent picture across all six Cinebench comparisons: the Intel Core i7-2860QM, a mobile processor from the Sandy Bridge generation, edges out the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3, a server-class Haswell chip, in every single recorded test. The margins are narrow, but they are uniform. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the i7-2860QM scores 390 against the Xeon's 386, a 1% advantage. The single-core R15 test results in a tie at 54 points, though the database credits the i7 with the win due to a 0% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multicore scores are 1626 for the i7 and 1611 for the Xeon, another 0.9% lead for the mobile chip. The single-core R20 test similarly shows a 0.9% gap, with scores of 229 and 227.

The trend holds in the newer Cinebench R23 suite. The i7-2860QM posts a multicore score of 3873, while the Xeon E5-2609 v3 manages 3836. That is a 1% advantage. In the R23 single-core test, the i7 scores 546 against the Xeon's 541, again a 0.9% lead. What is interesting here is that the Xeon has more physical cores (six versus four), yet it cannot translate that into a multicore victory. The data suggests that the i7's higher clock frequencies, which are not directly listed but implied by the single-core results, are enough to offset the Xeon's core count deficit. The i7-2860QM also posts a Geekbench multicore score of 1681 and a single-core score of 558, while the Xeon has no Geekbench entries in the database, so the comparison stops there.

These are not decisive victories. The largest delta is a mere 1%. For most workloads, this level of difference is within noise. However, the direction is unambiguously in the i7's favor. The Xeon wins zero tests, and the i7 wins all six recorded head-to-head comparisons. The percentile rankings reinforce the closeness: the i7 sits at the 32nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon sits at the 31st. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical, with the i7 at 1120 and the Xeon at 1109. When compared to the nearest rivals list, the i7 is essentially tied with the AMD Athlon 240GE, the Intel Xeon D-1518, and the Intel Core i3-4150, all within a 0.2% delta. The Xeon is similarly close to the Intel Core i5-4570T, the Intel Xeon E5630, and the Intel Core i7-5557U.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Core i7-2860QM has a higher score, recording 3873 points compared to the Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3's 3836 points. This is a 1% difference.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Xeon E5-2609 v3 performs better?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the i7-2860QM wins all six recorded comparisons. The Xeon's closest result is in the Cinebench R15 single-core test, where both processors score 54 points.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of average benchmark scores?

A: The average benchmark score for the Intel Core i7-2860QM is 1120. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has an average score of 1109, making the difference very small.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has a larger L3 cache at 15 MB (shared). The Intel Core i7-2860QM has an 8 MB (shared) L3 cache.

Q: What is the Xeon's TDP compared to the i7's?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 has a TDP of 85 watts, while the Intel Core i7-2860QM has a much lower TDP of 45 watts.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-2860QM does not.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two is substantial. The Intel Core i7-2860QM belongs to the Sandy Bridge architecture, built on a 32 nanometer process. The Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-EP, and is manufactured on a 22 nanometer process. This gives the Xeon a node advantage, which typically results in better power efficiency and lower heat output. The Xeon also has a much larger physical footprint, with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors, compared to the i7's 216 mm² and 1,160 million transistors.

The core architectures are also different. The i7-2860QM is a quad-core processor with 8 threads, using Hyper-Threading technology. The Xeon E5-2609 v3 is a hexa-core processor with 6 threads, but it does not have Hyper-Threading, as its thread count equals its core count. This is a major difference. The i7 has a base clock of 2.50 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Xeon has a base clock of 1900.00 GHz, which is an unusual figure, and no boost clock is listed. The i7's ability to boost to 3.60 GHz is likely the reason it wins the single-core tests despite the Xeon's newer architecture.

The memory support also diverges. The Xeon E5-2609 v3 supports DDR4 memory, has a quad-channel memory bus, and a recorded memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. It also supports ECC memory. The i7-2860QM has a dual-channel memory bus, but no memory bandwidth or memory type is listed in the database. The Xeon is designed for server and workstation market segments, while the i7 targets mobile. The Xeon has 40 PCIe lanes (Gen 3, CPU only), while the i7's PCIe support is not listed. The Xeon also has no integrated graphics, while the i7 comes with an Intel HD 3000.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The i7-2860QM has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2609 v3 has 6 cores and 6 threads. The base clock speeds are drastically different: the i7 runs at 2.50 GHz, and the Xeon at 1900.00 GHz (which is likely a misprint in the source but is the recorded figure). The i7 has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon has no boost clock listed. The TDP is also a major difference, with the i7 drawing 45 watts and the Xeon drawing 85 watts.

The cache hierarchy is another point of difference. Both have the same L1 and L2 cache sizes (64 KB per core and 256 KB per core, respectively), but the L3 cache is larger on the Xeon: 15 MB shared versus 8 MB shared on the i7. The memory bus is different: dual-channel on the i7, quad-channel on the Xeon. The Xeon has a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, while the i7 has none listed. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the i7 does not. The Xeon also has a different socket (Intel Socket 2011-3) than the i7 (Intel Socket G2 (988B)). The i7 has integrated graphics (Intel HD 3000), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The release dates differ as well: the i7 was released in September 2011, and the Xeon was released in September 2014. The i7 has a launch MSRP of none, while the Xeon has a launch MSRP of $306.

The Verdict

The data is clear: the Intel Core i7-2860QM is the better performing CPU in every single benchmark recorded. It achieves a 100% win rate in the head-to-head comparisons, even though the margins are razor-thin. The i7's performance is driven by its higher clock speeds and Hyperthreading, which allow it to outperform the Xeon's six physical cores in multi-threaded workloads. The Xeon, on the other hand, is a server chip with a different set of priorities: it supports ECC memory, has a quad-channel memory bus, and offers a larger L3 cache. The Xeon also has a higher TDP, which is typical for server parts that are not power-constrained.

The percentile data confirms the closeness. The i7-2860QM sits at the 32nd percentile, just above the Xeon's 31st percentile. The i7's average score is 1120, and the Xeon's is 1109. In the nearest rivals list, the i7 is tied with the AMD Athlon 240GE and the Intel Xeon D-1518, while the Xeon is tied with the Intel Core i5-4570T and the Intel Core i7-5557U. This means that in terms of raw benchmark performance, these two are in the same ballpark, but the i7 is slightly ahead.

The verdict is clear: if you are looking for raw CPU performance as measured by Cinebench and Geekbench, the Intel Core i7-2860QM is the winner. The Xeon E5-2609 v3 is not a better choice for those workloads. However, the Xeon's appeal lies in its server features, not its benchmark scores.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i7-2860QM: This processor wins every single benchmark test recorded in the head-to-head data. It wins the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, albeit by a narrow margin. It also wins the single-core tests, including a tie in R15. The i7 also has a Geekbench score, which the Xeon lacks. Its wins are due to its high boost clock of 3.60 GHz, which allows it to outperform the Xeon in a single-threaded workloads. The i7's 8 threads also give it a slight edge in multi-threaded tests. It is also more power-efficient, with a TDP of 45 watts versus 85 watts, and it has an integrated GPU, which is a feature absent on the Xeon. The i7 is the better choice for any consumer workload.

Intel Xeon E5-2609 v3: This processor does not win any benchmark tests. However, it still has strengths that are not reflected in the benchmark scores. It has a larger L3 cache (15 MB), which can be beneficial for certain cache-sensitive applications. It supports ECC memory, which is a must for critical server workloads. It also has a quad-channel memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s, which is a significant feature for memory-heavy tasks. It has more physical cores (6 vs 4), which could be useful for specific workloads that scale with core count and do not benefit from Hyperthreading. The Xeon also has 40 PCIe lanes (Gen 3, CPU only), which is a server feature, and it is designed for a server and workstation market segment. It comes with a launch MSRP of $306.