Intel Core i7-3740QM vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data paints a remarkably consistent picture across all six Cinebench tests: the Intel Core i7-3740QM wins every single head-to-head comparison, though by margins so narrow they border on statistical noise. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the i7-3740QM scores 69 against the Xeon E3-1240L v3's 68, a delta of -1.4% from the Xeon's perspective. Every other test shows the i7-3740QM ahead by less than one percent, with deltas of -0.6% or -0.7% depending on the workload.

In multi-threaded workloads, the pattern holds. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 489 for the i7-3740QM versus 486 for the Xeon, a -0.6% delta. Cinebench R20 multicore repeats the script: 2040 against 2027, again -0.6%. Cinebench R23 multicore delivers 4859 versus 4827, a -0.7% gap. These differences are tiny in absolute terms, roughly 12 to 32 points on scores in the thousands or hundreds.

Single-core results tell the same story with slightly more variation. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 288 for the i7-3740QM and 286 for the Xeon, a -0.7% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core records 686 versus 681, also -0.7%. The R15 single-core test is the outlier in relative terms at -1.4%, but the absolute difference remains just one point.

What does this mean? The benchmark data indicates the two processors are effectively equivalent in raw Cinebench throughput. The i7-3740QM holds a perfect 6-0 record, but the largest winning margin is 1.4%, and most wins are under one percent. For practical purposes, the recorded scores suggest neither chip offers a meaningful performance advantage in these rendering workloads. The wins are real, but they are not decisive.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this interpretation. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 carries an average benchmark score of 1396, while the i7-3740QM sits at 1378. Interestingly, the Xeon's average is slightly higher despite losing every head-to-head test, a quirk explained by the i7-3740QM having additional Geekbench scores in its benchmark set. The Xeon ranks in the 37th percentile of all CPUs, the i7-3740QM in the 36th, a one-percentile difference that aligns with their near-identical performance.

Nearest rival data for the Xeon shows it trading blows with comparable chips: the Intel Core i5-6500TE averages 1399 (-0.2%), the Intel Xeon E3-1220 v5 averages 1401 (-0.4%), the Intel Xeon E-2104G averages 1402 (-0.4%), and the Intel Pentium Gold G7400TE averages 1404 (-0.6%). The i7-3740QM's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1200 at 1379 (0% delta), the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2300U at 1379 (-0.1%), the AMD Opteron 6366 HE at 1379 (-0.1%), and the Intel Core i5-1030NG7 at 1376 (+0.2%). Both chips sit in a dense cluster of similarly performing processors.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different Intel generations and target different markets. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-WS variant, built on a 22 nm process with 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The Core i7-3740QM uses the older Ivy Bridge architecture, also on 22 nm with the same transistor count and die size. Both are four-core, eight-thread parts with 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 cache per core.

The shared L3 cache is where they diverge. The Xeon packs 8 MB of shared L3, while the i7-3740QM offers 6 MB. That 2 MB difference could matter in workloads with larger working sets, though the benchmark results do not show it translating into a Cinebench advantage for the Xeon.

Socket and platform differences are substantial. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1150, a desktop/server socket that allows for discrete motherboard selection. The i7-3740QM uses Intel BGA 1224, a ball-grid-array package soldered directly to the motherboard, typical of mobile designs. This makes the i7-3740QM a laptop-oriented chip, while the Xeon targets server and workstation builds.

Memory support also separates them. The Xeon supports DDR3 with dual-channel memory and a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s, along with ECC memory support. The i7-3740QM also uses dual-channel DDR3, but the database records no memory bandwidth figure and no ECC support. The Xeon's ECC capability is a meaningful feature for reliability-conscious server workloads.

Integrated graphics present another split. The i7-3740QM includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 has no integrated graphics recorded. The Xeon also carries PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-3740QM has no PCIe information recorded in the database.

Clock speeds favor the i7-3740QM. Its base clock runs at 2.70 GHz with a boost clock of 3.70 GHz, versus the Xeon's 2.00 GHz base and 3.00 GHz boost. The i7-3740QM also has a much higher TDP at 45 watts versus the Xeon's 25 watts, reflecting its mobile pedigree where power draw is less constrained in a laptop chassis. The Xeon's 25-watt TDP is notably low for a server part, suggesting an emphasis on efficiency.

Release timing differs by about a year and a half. The i7-3740QM launched in September 2012, while the Xeon E3-1240L v3 arrived in May 2014. The Xeon is marked end-of-life in the database, and its launch MSRP was $278. Production status for the i7-3740QM is not recorded.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-3740QM reaches 3.70 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v3 boosts to 3.00 GHz.

Q: Does the Xeon E3-1240L v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory support is listed for the Xeon. The Core i7-3740QM does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v3 is rated at 25 watts, while the Core i7-3740QM is rated at 45 watts, a 20-watt gap.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB on the Core i7-3740QM.

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

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which chip includes integrated graphics?

A: The Core i7-3740QM includes Intel HD 4000 graphics. The Xeon E3-1240L v3 has no integrated graphics recorded.

Specification Differences

The database records several fields where the two processors differ. Core count, thread count, L1 cache, L2 cache, process node, foundry, transistor count, and die size are identical, so those are excluded here.

• Base clock: Xeon E3-1240L v3 at 2.00 GHz, Core i7-3740QM at 2.70 GHz
• Boost clock: Xeon E3-1240L v3 at 3.00 GHz, Core i7-3740QM at 3.70 GHz
• TDP: Xeon E3-1240L v3 at 25 watts, Core i7-3740QM at 45 watts
• Socket: Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses Intel Socket 1150, Core i7-3740QM uses Intel BGA 1224
• Architecture: Xeon E3-1240L v3 uses Haswell (Haswell-WS), Core i7-3740QM uses Ivy Bridge
• Generation: Xeon E3-1240L v3 is Xeon E3 (Haswell-WS), Core i7-3740QM is Core i7 (Ivy Bridge)
• Codename: Xeon E3-1240L v3 is Haswell-WS, Core i7-3740QM is Ivy Bridge
• L3 cache: Xeon E3-1240L v3 has 8 MB shared, Core i7-3740QM has 6 MB shared
• Memory support: Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports DDR3, Core i7-3740QM has no memory support type recorded
• Memory bandwidth: Xeon E3-1240L v3 records 25.6 GB/s, Core i7-3740QM has none recorded
• ECC memory: Xeon E3-1240L v3 supports it, Core i7-3740QM does not
• PCIe: Xeon E3-1240L v3 has Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only), Core i7-3740QM has none recorded
• Integrated graphics: Xeon E3-1240L v3 has none, Core i7-3740QM has Intel HD 4000
• Market segment: Xeon E3-1240L v3 is Server/Workstation, Core i7-3740QM is Mobile
• Production status: Xeon E3-1240L v3 is end-of-life, Core i7-3740QM has none recorded
• Release date: Xeon E3-1240L v3 released May 2014, Core i7-3740QM released September 2012
• Launch MSRP: Xeon E3-1240L v3 at $278, Core i7-3740QM has none recorded
• Part number: Xeon E3-1240L v3 is SR1T8, Core i7-3740QM has none recorded

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-3740QM wins every recorded benchmark, but the margins are so small that the practical takeaway is parity in Cinebench rendering. Its higher clock speeds (2.70 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost) likely drive these narrow wins, offsetting the Xeon's larger 8 MB L3 cache. The i7-3740QM also brings integrated graphics, making it a self-contained mobile solution where a discrete GPU is optional.

The Xeon E3-1240L v3 wins on efficiency and platform flexibility. Its 25-watt TDP is nearly half the i7-3740QM's 45 watts, making it the better choice for power-constrained server environments. ECC memory support and a standard Socket 1150 interface allow for server-grade motherboards and error-checking memory, features the i7-3740QM cannot offer. The Xeon's 8 MB L3 cache and 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth provide architectural headroom that the benchmark data does not fully exploit in Cinebench.

For workstation builds where ECC is required, the Xeon is the only option between these two. For laptops or all-in-one systems where integrated graphics and higher clocks matter, the i7-3740QM fits. The Xeon's server/workstation market segment and end-of-life status suggest it was designed for longevity in socketed platforms, while the i7-3740QM's BGA socket ties it to a specific motherboard.

The Verdict

The benchmark data shows a near-tie with a technical edge to the Core i7-3740QM. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, though by margins under 1.5%, and its average benchmark score of 1378 sits just below the Xeon's 1396 due to additional Geekbench results in its profile. The percentile rankings reflect this: 36th for the i7-3740QM, 37th for the Xeon.

Choose the Core i7-3740QM if you need the higher clock speeds (2.70 GHz base, 3.70 GHz boost), integrated graphics, or a mobile form factor. Its performance is marginally better in every recorded test, and the 45-watt TDP is acceptable in a laptop context.

Choose the Xeon E3-1240L v3 if you require ECC memory, a socketed platform for upgradeability, or lower power consumption. The 25-watt TDP, 8 MB L3 cache, and 25.6 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the more server-appropriate part, even if its benchmark scores trail by fractions of a percent. The launch MSRP of $278 also positions it as a workstation-oriented option, though pricing considerations are secondary to the feature set.

For raw Cinebench throughput, flip a coin. For platform capabilities, the choice is clear: the Xeon for servers and ECC, the i7-3740QM for mobile and integrated graphics. The data does not support a decisive performance winner, only a feature-based one.