Intel Core i7-2860QM vs Intel Xeon E5640 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data for this comparison is remarkably one-sided. The Intel Core i7-2860QM takes the win across all five recorded head-to-head tests, and the margin is consistent. The Intel Xeon E5640 trails in every single instance.

Looking at the multicore results, the gap is clear. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 332 versus the Core i7's 390, a delta of -14.9% for the Xeon. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the Xeon posts 1387 and the Core i7 posts 1626, a -14.7% difference. In the more demanding Cinebench R23 multicore test, the Xeon manages 3303 while the Core i7 reaches 3873, again a -14.7% delta.

The single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 195, while the Core i7 reaches 229, a -14.8% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 466, and the Core i7 scores 546, a -14.7% deficit for the server chip. The consistency across all five tests is striking, with the delta hovering around -14.7% to -14.9% in every workload.

The data indicates that the mobile Core i7-2860QM is faster than the server Xeon E5640 in every benchmark category recorded here. The Core i7 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, and the Xeon wins none. This is a clean sweep.

The Verdict

The recorded benchmark results point to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Core i7-2860QM is the faster processor in every measured workload. The Xeon E5640 does not have a single winning benchmark in this comparison. For any task that relies on the Cinebench suite, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the Core i7-2860QM holds a clear advantage of roughly 14.7% to 14.9%.

This is notable given the market segments of the two chips. The Xeon E5640 is a server and workstation part, while the Core i7-2860QM is a mobile processor. Yet the mobile part outperforms the server part across the board. The Core i7-2860QM also carries a much lower TDP, with 45 watts versus the Xeon's 80 watts, meaning it achieves higher scores while consuming less power.

The Xeon E5640 does have its own strengths, but they are not reflected in the benchmark scores. It supports ECC memory, which is a feature absent on the Core i7-2860QM. It also uses triple-channel memory, whereas the Core i7 uses dual-channel. These are important considerations for a server environment, but they do not translate into higher Cinebench scores.

For a buyer choosing between these two based strictly on performance, the Core i7-2860QM is the clear winner. The data shows a 14.7% to 14.9% advantage in every recorded test. The Xeon E5640 is not competitive in this comparison.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and are built for different sockets. The Xeon E5640 is based on the Westmere architecture, specifically Westmere-EP, and uses the Intel Socket 1366. The Core i7-2860QM is based on the Sandy Bridge architecture and uses the Intel Socket G2 (988B). Both are built on a 32 nm process node at Intel's foundry.

The transistor counts are nearly identical. The Xeon packs 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die, while the Core i7 packs 1,160 million transistors on a smaller 216 mm² die. The Xeon has a slightly larger die and a marginally higher transistor count.

Core and thread counts are the same: both have 4 cores and 8 threads. The cache hierarchies differ notably. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The L3 cache is where they diverge. The Xeon E5640 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i7-2860QM has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This gives the Xeon a 50% larger last-level cache.

Clock speeds are also different. The Xeon E5640 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 2.93 GHz. The Core i7-2860QM has a lower base clock of 2.50 GHz but a significantly higher boost clock of 3.60 GHz. This higher boost clock likely contributes to the Core i7's consistent benchmark lead.

Memory support is a key differentiator. The Xeon supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus and ECC support. The Core i7-2860QM also supports memory, but the database records no specific memory type, and it uses a dual-channel bus with no ECC support. The Xeon also supports PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i7's PCIe information is not recorded.

The Core i7-2860QM includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 3000, while the Xeon E5640 has no integrated graphics. The market segments are also distinct: the Xeon is a server and workstation part, while the Core i7 is a mobile part. The Xeon was released on 2010-03-15, while the Core i7 was released later on 2011-09-03. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has a recorded launch MSRP.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-2860QM has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5640 has a boost clock of 2.93 GHz.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Core i7-2860QM has 8 MB, giving the Xeon a 4 MB advantage.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-2860QM support ECC memory?

A: No, the database records that the Intel Core i7-2860QM does not support ECC memory, while the Intel Xeon E5640 does support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Core i7-2860QM wins with a score of 3873, compared to the Intel Xeon E5640's score of 3303, a delta of -14.7%.

Q: What is the TDP of each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5640 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the Intel Core i7-2860QM has a TDP of 45 watts.

Q: Do both processors have the same core count?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E5640 and the Intel Core i7-2860QM have 4 cores and 8 threads.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows that the Intel Core i7-2860QM wins every recorded performance test. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, covering both single-core and multi-core workloads, the Core i7-2860QM is ahead by roughly 14.7% to 14.9%. For any task that depends on these rendering benchmarks, the Core i7-2860QM is the better choice.

The Intel Xeon E5640 does not win any of the five head-to-head benchmarks. However, it does have architectural advantages that are not measured by Cinebench. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server and workstation environments. It also has a larger 12 MB L3 cache compared to the Core i7's 8 MB, which could benefit workloads that are highly cache-sensitive.

The Xeon also supports triple-channel memory, while the Core i7 uses dual-channel. This provides the Xeon with a wider memory path, which can be beneficial in memory-bandwidth-intensive server workloads. The Xeon also has a higher base clock of 2.67 GHz versus the Core i7's 2.50 GHz, though the Core i7's boost clock of 3.60 GHz far exceeds the Xeon's 2.93 GHz.

For a server or workstation role where ECC memory and triple-channel bandwidth are priorities, the Xeon E5640 has a purpose. For raw compute performance in Cinebench-style workloads, the Core i7-2860QM is the clear winner. The data shows a consistent 14.7% advantage for the Core i7 across all five tests.

The Core i7 also has the advantage of integrated graphics, with Intel HD 3000, which the Xeon lacks entirely. This makes the Core i7 a more complete package for a system that does not require a discrete GPU. The Core i7 also consumes less power, with a 45 watt TDP versus the Xeon's 80 watts, making it more efficient per unit of performance.

In summary, the Intel Core i7-2860QM wins on every benchmark recorded, making it the superior choice for performance. The Intel Xeon E5640 offers ECC memory, triple-channel memory support, and a larger L3 cache, which are valuable in specific server contexts but do not translate to wins in the Cinebench suite.