Intel Core i7-3740QM vs Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 and the Intel Core i7-3740QM are both quad-core, eight-thread Ivy Bridge processors built on Intel’s 22 nm process, yet they target entirely different corners of the market. The Xeon is a server/workstation part for Socket 1356, while the i7 is a mobile part for BGA 1224. Despite the architectural kinship, benchmark results show the mobile chip consistently ahead in every recorded test, a surprising outcome given the Xeon’s server pedigree. The data tells a story of clock speed versus platform features, where the i7’s higher boost clock and lower power envelope translate into a clean sweep of Cinebench victories, while the Xeon counters with ECC memory support, triple-channel DDR3, and a larger L3 cache.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-3740QM boosts to 3.70 GHz, which is 0.50 GHz higher than the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2’s 3.20 GHz boost clock.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The Intel Core i7-3740QM scores 4859, while the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 scores 4732. The i7 leads by 2.6%, a margin that repeats across all multi-core Cinebench tests.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has ECC memory support set to true, whereas the Intel Core i7-3740QM does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bus configuration for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 uses a triple-channel memory bus with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Intel Core i7-3740QM uses a dual-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure listed.

Q: Which processor has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 6 MB of shared L3 cache on the Intel Core i7-3740QM, a difference of 4 MB.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each chip?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has an average benchmark score of 1368, while the Intel Core i7-3740QM scores 1378. The i7 also holds a 36th percentile ranking, identical to the Xeon’s 36th percentile.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Ivy Bridge architecture and 22 nm process node from Intel, but they diverge significantly in their implementation. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge-EN codename, while the i7-3740QM uses the standard Ivy Bridge codename. The Xeon packs 1,860 million transistors on a 257 mm² die, whereas the i7 has 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 160 mm² die. This size and transistor difference aligns with the Xeon’s server role, which often demands more robust cache hierarchies and memory controllers.

The most striking architectural gap is the L3 cache: the Xeon offers 10 MB shared, while the i7 has only 6 MB shared. Both share the same L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) cache sizes, but the L3 disparity is significant for workloads that benefit from larger pooled caches. The memory subsystem also differs—the Xeon uses a triple-channel DDR3 bus with a rated bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, while the i7 uses a dual-channel bus with no bandwidth figure provided. This gives the Xeon a theoretical memory bandwidth advantage, though benchmark results do not reflect a performance win.

Another key difference is the socket and platform. The Xeon fits Intel Socket 1356 and belongs to the server/workstation segment, while the i7 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1224. The Xeon’s PCIe configuration is listed as Gen 3 with 24 lanes (CPU only), whereas the i7 has no PCIe data in the pack. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i7. The i7 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), while the Xeon has none. Power consumption diverges sharply: the Xeon has an 80 W TDP, while the i7 is rated at 45 W, reflecting the mobile chip’s efficiency focus.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the head-to-head benchmark data, the Intel Core i7-3740QM wins every single test, taking all six recorded victories. This is a clean sweep in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, across both multi-core and single-core tests. The i7’s advantage is consistent, with delta percentages ranging from -2.6% to -2.9% against the Xeon. The largest lead is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the i7 scores 69 versus the Xeon’s 67, a 2.9% gap. The smallest lead is 2.6%, seen in Cinebench R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core.

The Xeon E5-1410 v2, despite losing all benchmarks, wins on platform-level features. It offers ECC memory support, triple-channel memory with a defined bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, and a larger 10 MB L3 cache. These are attributes that do not show up in Cinebench scores but matter for server stability and memory-intensive workloads. The Xeon also has a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus the i7’s 2.70 GHz, though the i7’s boost clock of 3.70 GHz overshadows that advantage.

For users prioritizing raw CPU throughput in rendering or encoding, the i7-3740QM is the clear winner in this comparison. For users needing ECC memory, triple-channel bandwidth, or a server-grade socket, the Xeon is the only option. The i7’s integrated graphics also give it a feature edge for systems without a discrete GPU, though the Xeon’s server market rarely requires that.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The base clock is close, with the Xeon at 2.80 GHz and the i7 at 2.70 GHz, a 0.10 GHz difference favoring the Xeon. However, the boost clock reverses this: the i7 boosts to 3.70 GHz, while the Xeon tops out at 3.20 GHz, a 0.50 GHz advantage for the i7. The TDP differs substantially, with the Xeon at 80 W and the i7 at 45 W, making the mobile chip far more power-efficient.

The socket is a major differentiator: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1356, while the i7 uses Intel BGA 1224. The process node is identical at 22 nm, but the transistor count and die size differ, as noted. The L3 cache is 10 MB on the Xeon versus 6 MB on the i7. Memory support varies: the Xeon supports DDR3 with a triple-channel bus and 32.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7 has no memory support listed but uses a dual-channel bus. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not the i7. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 3 with 24 lanes, while the i7 has no PCIe data. The i7 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), while the Xeon has none. The market segment differs: the Xeon is server/workstation, the i7 is mobile. The release dates also diverge, with the Xeon launching on 2014-01-08 and the i7 on 2012-09-02.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-3740QM wins all six head-to-head tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 489 against the Xeon’s 476, a 2.7% lead for the i7. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern, with the i7 at 69 and the Xeon at 67, a 2.9% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the i7 extends its multi-core lead to 2040 versus 1987, a 2.6% difference, and in single-core, it scores 288 versus 280, a 2.8% advantage.

Cinebench R23 results follow the same trend. The i7’s multi-core score is 4859, while the Xeon manages 4732, a 2.6% gap. In single-core R23, the i7 scores 686, and the Xeon scores 668, also a 2.6% difference. The consistency of these margins—hovering between 2.6% and 2.9% across all tests—suggests the i7’s higher boost clock is the primary driver. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache and triple-channel memory do not translate into Cinebench wins, as the workload appears to favor raw clock speed over cache size or memory bandwidth.

The i7 also has additional benchmark data not available for the Xeon: Geekbench multi-core score of 1993 and single-core score of 599. This absence of Geekbench data for the Xeon limits direct comparison in that specific test, but the Cinebench results are sufficient to establish the i7’s dominance in this pairing. The average benchmark score reinforces this, with the i7 at 1378 and the Xeon at 1368, a 10-point gap.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear choice for users focused purely on CPU benchmark performance: the Intel Core i7-3740QM wins every recorded test. Its higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz, appears to be the decisive factor in Cinebench workloads. The i7’s 45 W TDP also makes it a more power-efficient option, which is notable for a chip that outperforms a server part in this benchmark suite.

However, the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 is not without reason for existence. It offers ECC memory support, which is critical for error-correcting workloads in servers and workstations. Its triple-channel memory bus with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth provides a memory bandwidth advantage that the i7 cannot match, and its 10 MB L3 cache is 4 MB larger. These features are absent from the i7, which lacks ECC and uses a dual-channel bus. The Xeon’s socket (Intel Socket 1356) also fits server platforms, while the i7’s BGA 1224 is soldered to mobile boards.

For a server or workstation build requiring ECC memory and platform reliability, the Xeon E5-1410 v2 is the only choice, despite its benchmark losses. For a mobile or compact system where CPU throughput is paramount, the i7-3740QM is superior in every measured test. The percentile rankings are identical at 36, but the i7’s higher average score of 1378 versus 1368 gives it a slight edge in overall standing. The verdict, strictly from the data, is that the i7 wins on performance, while the Xeon wins on server-class features that benchmarks do not capture.