CPU Comparison
Intel Core i7-3612QM
Xeon E5640
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i7-3612QM vs Intel Xeon E5640
The Intel Xeon E5640 and Intel Core i7-3612QM are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, but they target entirely different segments: the former is a server/workstation part from the Westmere generation, while the latter is a mobile chip from the Ivy Bridge generation. Benchmark data shows a consistent performance advantage for the Core i7-3612QM across all tested workloads, despite its significantly lower power envelope. The Xeon E5640, however, retains advantages in platform features like ECC memory support and a triple-channel memory bus.
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark results are unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-3612QM wins all five head-to-head comparisons. The largest single delta appears in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where the i7-3612QM scores 397 against the Xeon E5640's 332, a 16.4% advantage. This pattern is consistent across the entire Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i7-3612QM posts 1656 points versus 1387 for the Xeon, a 16.2% lead. The single-core results tell the same story: the i7-3612QM scores 233 in Cinebench R20 single-core, beating the Xeon's 195 by 16.3%.
The most recent rendering benchmark, Cinebench R23, reinforces this trend. The i7-3612QM achieves 3944 points in multi-core, while the Xeon E5640 manages 3303, another 16.3% gap. In single-core R23, the i7-3612QM scores 556 against the Xeon's 466, a 16.2% difference. These consistent deltas, hovering between 16.2% and 16.4% across all five tests, suggest a uniform architectural efficiency advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.
The average benchmark scores corroborate this. The Xeon E5640 has an average benchmark score of 1137, while the i7-3612QM sits at 1129, making them statistically near-identical in aggregate. Yet the head-to-head results show the i7-3612QM winning every single rendering test. This apparent contradiction is explained by the fact that the i7-3612QM's average includes a Geekbench multi-core score of 1691 and a single-core score of 501, results that are not available for the Xeon E5640. The Xeon's average is derived solely from its five Cinebench scores, which are all lower than the corresponding i7-3612QM scores.
Both processors sit at the 32nd percentile among all CPUs tracked, indicating they occupy the same overall performance tier despite the i7-3612QM's clear lead in these specific tests. The Xeon E5640's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-2550K (avg score 1136, delta 0.1%) and the AMD Athlon Silver PRO 3125GE (avg score 1138, delta -0.1%). The i7-3612QM's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-4690T (avg score 1129, delta 0%), with the Intel Core i7-2720QM (avg score 1128, delta 0.1%) also nearby.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core rendering?
A: The Intel Core i7-3612QM wins all multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 397 versus 332 in R15 (16.4% faster), 1656 versus 1387 in R20 (16.2% faster), and 3944 versus 3303 in R23 (16.3% faster).
Q: Is the single-core performance gap similar to the multi-core gap?
A: Yes. The i7-3612QM leads by 16.3% in Cinebench R20 single-core (233 vs 195) and by 16.2% in Cinebench R23 single-core (556 vs 466). The deltas are nearly identical to the multi-core differences.
Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?
A: The Xeon E5640 has an average benchmark score of 1137, while the i7-3612QM averages 1129. The i7-3612QM's average is pulled down by its Geekbench scores (1691 multi-core, 501 single-core), which have no equivalent for the Xeon.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: No. The Xeon E5640 supports ECC memory, while the i7-3612QM does not. This is a key differentiator for server/workstation reliability requirements.
Q: What are their respective power envelopes?
A: The Xeon E5640 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the i7-3612QM is rated at just 35 watts. The mobile chip delivers higher performance while consuming less than half the power budget.
Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?
A: The i7-3612QM boosts to 3.10 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon E5640's 2.93 GHz boost. However, the Xeon has a higher base clock at 2.67 GHz versus 2.10 GHz.
Architecture Differences
The two processors come from different architectural generations and manufacturing processes. The Xeon E5640 is built on the Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, using a 32 nm process node. The i7-3612QM is an Ivy Bridge part, also on a 22 nm process node. This process shrink allows the i7-3612QM to pack more transistors, 1,400 million versus 1,170 million, into a smaller die size of 160 mm² compared to the Xeon's 239 mm².
Cache configurations differ significantly. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the Xeon E5640 has 12 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-3612QM has only 6 MB of shared L3 cache. Despite having half the L3 cache, the i7-3612QM still outperforms the Xeon in all benchmarks, indicating that the newer Ivy Bridge architecture is more efficient at utilizing its cache.
The memory subsystems also diverge. The Xeon E5640 supports DDR3 memory over a triple-channel bus, while the i7-3612QM uses a dual-channel configuration. The Xeon's ECC memory support is a significant architectural feature for error-correcting workloads. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 2 support, while the i7-3612QM has no PCIe information listed in the data. The i7-3612QM includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4000, a feature entirely absent from the Xeon E5640.
The market segments are fundamentally different: the Xeon E5640 is a Server/Workstation part, while the i7-3612QM is a Mobile processor. This is reflected in their sockets: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, and the i7-3612QM uses Intel Socket G2 (988B). Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a supported feature for either.
Specification Differences
The most striking specification difference is TDP: the Xeon E5640 draws 80 watts while the i7-3612QM draws only 35 watts. Clock speeds also differ, with the Xeon having a higher base clock (2.67 GHz vs 2.10 GHz) but a lower boost clock (2.93 GHz vs 3.10 GHz). The i7-3612QM was released later, on 2012-04-28, compared to the Xeon's 2010-03-15 release date.
The Xeon E5640 is marked as an End-of-life product, while the i7-3612QM's production status is not specified. The process node differs (32 nm for Westmere vs 22 nm for Ivy Bridge), as do transistor counts (1,170 million vs 1,400 million) and die sizes (239 mm² vs 160 mm²). The L3 cache is double on the Xeon (12 MB vs 6 MB). Memory support shows the Xeon with triple-channel DDR3 and ECC, while the i7-3612QM has dual-channel DDR3 and no ECC. The i7-3612QM includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. Part numbers are SLBVC for the Xeon and SR0MQ for the i7-3612QM.
The Verdict
The data presents a clear case for the Intel Core i7-3612QM as the better performer in every benchmark category tested. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests with deltas ranging from 16.2% to 16.4%. This performance advantage comes with a 45-watt lower TDP (35W vs 80W), making the i7-3612QM dramatically more power-efficient. The i7-3612QM also benefits from a newer architecture, smaller process node, and integrated graphics, making it a more versatile and modern package.
However, the Xeon E5640 is not without its merits. Its 12 MB of L3 cache is double that of the i7-3612QM, and it supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server and workstation environments. The triple-channel memory bus also provides greater memory bandwidth capacity for multi-threaded server workloads. Its higher base clock of 2.67 GHz could be beneficial in scenarios where sustained all-core operation is more important than peak boost performance.
Users building or maintaining a server or workstation platform on Socket 1366 with ECC memory requirements should consider the Xeon E5640. It remains a viable option for legacy systems where reliability and error correction take precedence over raw speed. For anyone seeking maximum performance in rendering workloads, the i7-3612QM is the clear choice, delivering roughly 16% higher scores across all Cinebench tests while consuming less than half the power. The i7-3612QM is also the better option for mobile or space-constrained builds, given its 35-watt TDP and integrated graphics. The data suggests that for most modern workloads, the architectural efficiency of Ivy Bridge outweighs the Xeon's larger cache and memory features.