Intel Core i7-3820QM vs Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-3820QM and the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 are effectively tied in overall performance, but the data reveals a clear split in their respective strengths. The Core i7-3820QM edges out the Xeon in five of the six head-to-head Cinebench tests, while the Xeon manages a single tie. However, the margins are extremely narrow, with the largest delta being just 1.1%. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical—1368 for the Xeon and 1366 for the Core i7—placing both at the 36th percentile among all CPUs. This is a contest decided by fractions of a percent, not by decisive victories.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show that the Intel Core i7-3820QM is the consistent, if marginal, winner in multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i7 scores 481 against the Xeon’s 476, a 1% advantage. This pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Core i7 posts 2006 versus 1987, a 0.9% lead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test follows suit, with the Core i7 scoring 4777 against the Xeon’s 4732, again a 0.9% edge. These are the largest wins for the Core i7, but they are hardly decisive; the performance gap is within the noise of typical run-to-run variation.

In single-core tests, the Core i7 also holds a slight edge, though the margin is even thinner. Cinebench R15 single-core results are a dead tie at 67 points each. The Core i7 pulls ahead in Cinebench R20 single-core with 283 points versus 280, a 1.1% lead, and in Cinebench R23 single-core with 674 versus 668, a 0.9% advantage. The Xeon’s only "win" is the tie in R15 single-core, which the data lists as a victory due to the delta of 0%. This means the Xeon never outright beats the Core i7 in any benchmark; it merely matches it once.

The overall win tally is 5-1 in favor of the Core i7-3820QM, but the average benchmark score difference is just 2 points (1368 vs 1366). The nearest rival data confirms this equivalence: the Xeon D-1521 is within 0.1% of the Xeon, and the AMD Opteron 6376 is within 0.1% as well. Against the Core i7, the Xeon is listed as -0.2% in the rival table, meaning the Core i7 is technically ahead by that fraction. For practical purposes, these two processors deliver identical performance in the tested Cinebench suite.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-3820QM wins in the vast majority of synthetic rendering tests. Its higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz, compared to the Xeon’s 3.20 GHz, gives it a consistent advantage in both single-core and multi-core Cinebench loads. The Core i7 leads in every multi-core test (R15, R20, R23) and in every single-core test except R15, where it ties. If a workload relies on raw CPU throughput in short, bursty rendering tasks, the Core i7 is the better pick based on these numbers.

The Xeon E5-1410 v2 wins only by default in the R15 single-core tie, which is not a meaningful victory. However, the Xeon has structural advantages that do not appear in the Cinebench scores. It supports triple-channel DDR3 memory, providing a memory bus width that the Core i7’s dual-channel setup lacks. The Xeon also has ECC memory support, which the Core i7 does not offer. These are not benchmark wins, but they are functional wins for server environments where data integrity and memory bandwidth are critical. The Xeon’s larger 10 MB shared L3 cache, versus the Core i7’s 8 MB, could also benefit workloads with large, repeated data sets, even if Cinebench does not show it.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture, but they come from different branches of that family. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 uses the Ivy Bridge-EN codename, while the Core i7-3820QM uses the standard Ivy Bridge design. The Xeon’s die is significantly larger at 257 mm² and contains 1,860 million transistors, compared to the Core i7’s 160 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. This larger die accommodates the Xeon’s larger 10 MB L3 cache and its server-oriented features.

The core and thread counts are identical: both have 4 cores and 8 threads. The base clocks are close, with the Xeon at 2.80 GHz and the Core i7 at 2.70 GHz, but the boost clocks diverge sharply—the Xeon reaches 3.20 GHz while the Core i7 boosts to 3.70 GHz. The memory controllers differ substantially: the Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 with a rated bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, while the Core i7 is limited to dual-channel DDR3 with no listed bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon.

Socket and platform are major differentiators. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 1356, a server platform, and supports PCIe Gen 3 with 24 lanes from the CPU. The Core i7 uses the mobile Intel BGA 1224 socket and has integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), which the Xeon lacks entirely. The Xeon is a server/workstation part, while the Core i7 is a mobile part. The Core i7 has a much lower TDP of 45 watts versus the Xeon’s 80 watts, reflecting its mobile design and lower boost potential. The Xeon was released later, on 2014-01-08, while the Core i7 came out on 2012-04-28.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 has an average benchmark score of 1368, while the Intel Core i7-3820QM scores 1366. The difference is 2 points, or 0.1%.

Q: Does the Core i7-3820QM win every benchmark in the head-to-head list?

A: No. The Core i7 wins five of six tests, but the Cinebench R15 single-core test is a tie at 67 points, which is credited as a win for the Xeon.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core i7-3820QM has a TDP of 45 watts, while the Xeon E5-1410 v2 has a TDP of 80 watts. The Core i7 uses significantly less power.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1410 v2 supports ECC memory, but the Core i7-3820QM does not.

Q: Which processor has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-1410 v2 has a 10 MB shared L3 cache, while the Core i7-3820QM has an 8 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Are these processors from the same manufacturing process?

A: Yes, both are built on Intel’s 22 nm process node, but the Xeon has a larger die (257 mm²) and more transistors (1,860 million) than the Core i7 (160 mm² and 1,400 million).

The Verdict

Choose the Intel Core i7-3820QM if you prioritize raw benchmark performance in Cinebench-style workloads. It wins five out of six head-to-head tests, with leads up to 1.1% in single-core and 1% in multi-core. Its higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz and lower TDP of 45 watts make it the more efficient and slightly faster part for rendering tasks. The Core i7 also includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks, making it a more self-contained solution for mobile or compact systems.

Choose the Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 if you need server-class features that benchmarks do not capture. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is essential for error-correcting workloads, and a triple-channel memory bus with 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth, which is double the channel count of the Core i7. Its larger 10 MB L3 cache and PCIe Gen 3 with 24 lanes make it better suited for workstation expansion. The Xeon’s performance is effectively identical to the Core i7—a 0.1% average score difference—but it trades a 1.1% single-core deficit for a more robust platform. For a server socket, the Xeon is the correct choice; for a mobile or general-purpose system, the Core i7 is the data-driven winner.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-1410 v2 | Intel Core i7-3820QM |

|----------------|----------------------|----------------------|

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.70 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 3.70 GHz |

| TDP | 80 W | 45 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1356 | Intel BGA 1224 |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge-EN | Ivy Bridge |

| Transistors | 1,860 million | 1,400 million |

| Die Size | 257 mm² | 160 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 10 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 32.0 GB/s | Not specified |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 24 Lanes (CPU only) | Not specified |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2014-01-08 | 2012-04-28 |

| Part Number | SR1B0 | SR0MK |