Intel Core i7-3770S vs Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Core i7-3770S has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5-1428L v2 has an average benchmark score of 1537, while the Core i7-3770S has an average score of 1498. That puts the Xeon about 2.6% higher overall.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-1428L v2 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-3770S does not, which is typical for a desktop part.

Q: Do both processors use the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel's 22 nm process node, and both use the Ivy Bridge architecture, though the Xeon uses the Ivy Bridge-EN variant.

Q: Which chip has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i7-3770S includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 has no integrated graphics at all.

Q: What are their release dates?

A: The Core i7-3770S was released in April 2012, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 came later in January 2014.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same fundamental Ivy Bridge architecture and 22 nm process node, but they diverge significantly in their implementation. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 uses the Ivy Bridge-EN codename with a die size of 257 mm² and 1,860 million transistors. The Core i7-3770S uses the standard Ivy Bridge desktop design with a smaller 160 mm² die and 1,400 million transistors. This larger die on the Xeon accommodates two additional cores and a much larger shared L3 cache: 15 MB versus 8 MB on the Core i7.

The memory subsystems also differ. The Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, while the Core i7 uses dual-channel DDR3 and has no listed bandwidth figure. The Xeon also extends to 24 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, compared to 16 lanes on the Core i7. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon, making it suited for error-correcting workloads. The Core i7 counters with Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

Clock speeds favor the desktop chip. The Core i7-3770S runs at a 3.10 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is more conservative at 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost. The Xeon compensates with a lower 60 W TDP versus the 65 W TDP of the Core i7, a narrow but real difference. Sockets differ as well: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1356, the Core i7 uses Intel Socket 1155.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Xeon E5-1428L v2 across every recorded test. The Xeon wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with no wins for the Core i7-3770S.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 535 against 529 for the Core i7, a 1.1% lead. Single-core in R15 shows 75 versus 74, a 1.4% edge for the Xeon. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core result is 2232 for the Xeon and 2205 for the Core i7, a 1.2% difference. The R20 single-core test shows 315 versus 311, again a 1.3% lead for the Xeon.

Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern. Multi-core scores are 5316 for the Xeon and 5251 for the Core i7, a 1.2% advantage. Single-core results are 750 versus 741, also a 1.2% edge for the Xeon. The margins are small in every case, ranging from 1.1% to 1.4%, but they are consistent.

It is worth remembering the Core i7-3770S has an additional Geekbench result not recorded for the Xeon: 2220 multi-core and 655 single-core. That data point does not change the head-to-head outcome, but it does show the Core i7 is capable in its own right.

The average benchmark scores reinforce the same conclusion. The Xeon sits at 1537, while the Core i7 sits at 1498. Both chips occupy the 38th percentile among all CPUs, meaning they are statistically peers in the broader performance landscape. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i5-7440HQ at 1527 (0.7% behind) and the Core i7-4760HQ at 1549 (0.8% ahead). The Core i7-3770S sits near the Core i3-8100T at 1500 (0.1% ahead) and the Core i5-7500T at 1483 (1.0% behind).

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture: the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded, but the margins are thin. A 1.1% to 1.4% lead in Cinebench tests is not transformative in real-world use. Both chips deliver nearly identical performance per clock in single-threaded tasks, and the Xeon's extra two cores only provide a modest multi-threaded advantage due to its lower clock speeds.

The choice between these two should come down to platform requirements rather than raw speed. If the workload demands ECC memory, triple-channel DDR3, or additional PCIe lanes, the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is the only option that fits. If the build needs integrated graphics, a desktop socket, or lower complexity, the Core i7-3770S is the practical pick. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $494, which reflects its server positioning, but pricing should not be the deciding factor here.

For a server or workstation environment where error-correcting memory and memory bandwidth matter, the Xeon is the correct choice. For a desktop machine where the integrated GPU saves a discrete graphics card and the 3.90 GHz boost clock helps single-thread responsiveness, the Core i7 is the better fit. The benchmark scores alone do not justify the Xeon over the Core i7, but the platform features do.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Xeon E5-1428L v2 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core i7-3770S has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the Xeon and 3.10 GHz for the Core i7. Boost clocks are 2.70 GHz and 3.90 GHz respectively. TDP is 60 W for the Xeon and 65 W for the Core i7.

Cache sizes diverge significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 15 MB on the Xeon versus 8 MB on the Core i7. The Xeon uses triple-channel memory with 32.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i7 uses dual-channel memory with no listed bandwidth. ECC support is present only on the Xeon. PCIe lanes number 24 on the Xeon and 16 on the Core i7.

The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i7 includes Intel HD 4000. Sockets differ: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1356, the Core i7 uses Intel Socket 1155. The Xeon's die is 257 mm² with 1,860 million transistors, compared to 160 mm² and 1,400 million on the Core i7. Release dates are January 2014 for the Xeon and April 2012 for the Core i7. The Xeon's part number is SR1B9, and the Core i7's is SR0PN. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1428L v2 wins in all benchmark tests recorded, but the wins are narrow. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration with 15 MB of L3 cache gives it an edge in multi-threaded workloads like Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core. The triple-channel memory bus and 32.0 GB/s bandwidth make it better suited for memory-intensive server tasks. ECC memory support is a decisive advantage for any application where data integrity is critical, such as file servers, database hosts, or long-running compute jobs. The 24 PCIe Gen 3 lanes provide more expansion headroom for storage controllers or network cards.

The Core i7-3770S wins on clock speed. Its 3.10 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost clocks are substantially higher than the Xeon's 2.20 GHz and 2.70 GHz, which helps in lightly threaded applications where the Xeon's extra cores cannot compensate. The integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics mean the Core i7 can run a display without a separate GPU, which is a clear advantage for basic desktops, home theater PCs, or office machines. The smaller 160 mm² die and 1,400 million transistors also indicate a simpler, more compact design that fits standard desktop motherboards.

The benchmark results show the Xeon ahead in every Cinebench test, but the differences are under 1.5%. In practical terms, the Core i7-3770S will feel equally responsive in everyday tasks, and its higher boost clock may even give it an edge in single-threaded latency-sensitive applications. The Xeon is the pick for reliability-focused server roles, while the Core i7 is the pick for general desktop use where integrated graphics and higher clocks matter more than ECC and memory bandwidth.