CPU Comparison

Intel Xeon E-2104G and Intel Core i7-3840QM are both 4-core Intel processors, but they come from different eras and target different markets. The Xeon is a Coffee Lake workstation part, while the i7 is an Ivy Bridge mobile chip. The benchmark data shows a consistent, though narrow, performance edge for the older i7 across all tested workloads, despite the Xeon's newer architecture and higher base clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i7-3840QM wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, though the margins are consistently slim. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 498 versus the Xeon's 488, a 2% advantage. The single-core test shows a similar story: the i7 leads 70 to 68, a 2.9% gap. These are the closest results in the comparison, indicating that the Xeon's newer architecture nearly closes the gap in single-threaded performance.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the i7 again wins multi-core with 2079 points against the Xeon's 2035, a 2.1% delta. The single-core result is 293 versus 287, another 2% edge. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the i7 posts 4952 multi-core and 699 single-core, while the Xeon manages 4847 and 684, respectively. Both R23 deltas sit at 2.1%.

The i7's advantage becomes more pronounced when looking at its broader benchmark set. It also has Geekbench results of 2111 multi-core and 628 single-core, which the Xeon lacks. This additional data point reinforces the i7's overall capability, though the absence of a matching Geekbench score for the Xeon prevents a direct comparison in that specific test.

In terms of average benchmark score, the i7 leads with 1416 against the Xeon's 1402. Both processors sit at the 37th percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same tier of overall performance. The i7's average score is 1% higher, a modest but consistent difference that aligns with its narrow wins across every Cinebench iteration.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is substantial. The Xeon E-2104G uses Coffee Lake on a 14 nm process, while the Core i7-3840QM is built on Ivy Bridge at 22 nm. This process difference gives the Xeon a transistor density advantage, though the i7 compensates with a larger die: 160 mm² versus the Xeon's 126 mm². The i7 also has a documented transistor count of 1,400 million, while the Xeon's count is not listed.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. Both have 4 physical cores, but the i7 supports 8 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the Xeon is limited to 4 threads. This explains why the i7 wins multi-core tests despite its older architecture. The base clocks favor the Xeon at 3.20 GHz versus the i7's 2.80 GHz, but the i7 has a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, a feature the Xeon lacks entirely.

Cache configurations are identical in capacity: both have 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. The memory interfaces diverge, however. The Xeon supports DDR4 with dual-channel operation and a listed bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the i7 uses DDR3 with dual-channel support but no listed bandwidth figure. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not.

The integrated graphics differ as well. The Xeon pairs with UHD Graphics P630, while the i7 includes Intel HD 4000. The Xeon is designed for the server/workstation segment with a PCIe Gen 3, 16-lane configuration, whereas the i7 targets mobile with a BGA 1224 socket and no PCIe information provided.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Core i7-3840QM wins all three Cinebench multi-core tests. It scores 498 in R15, 2079 in R20, and 4952 in R23, versus the Xeon's 488, 2035, and 4847. The margin is consistently around 2%.

Q: Does the Xeon E-2104G have any advantage in single-core performance?

A: No. The i7-3840QM also wins every single-core test, though by a slightly larger margin in R15 (2.9%) than in R20 and R23 (both 2%). The Xeon's higher base clock of 3.20 GHz does not translate into a benchmark win.

Q: How do the thread counts affect the results?

A: The i7 has 8 threads versus the Xeon's 4, which gives it a clear multi-threading advantage. This is reflected in the multi-core benchmarks, where the i7 consistently outperforms the Xeon despite the Xeon's newer architecture.

Q: What is the socket compatibility for each chip?

A: The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, while the i7 uses Intel BGA 1224. The Xeon is a socketed workstation part, whereas the i7 is a mobile BGA chip that is typically soldered to the motherboard.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E-2104G supports ECC memory. The i7-3840QM does not offer this feature, which is a key differentiator for workstation use.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7 has an average score of 1416, while the Xeon averages 1402. Both are at the 37th percentile, but the i7 holds a 1% lead in the aggregate score.

Specification Differences

• Threads: The Core i7-3840QM has 8 threads; the Xeon E-2104G has 4.
• Base Clock: The Xeon runs at 3.20 GHz; the i7 at 2.80 GHz.
• Boost Clock: The i7 boosts to 3.80 GHz; the Xeon has no boost clock.
• TDP: The Xeon is rated at 65 W; the i7 at 45 W.
• Process Node: The Xeon uses 14 nm; the i7 uses 22 nm.
• Die Size: The i7 measures 160 mm²; the Xeon is 126 mm².
• Transistors: The i7 has 1,400 million; the Xeon's count is not listed.
• Socket: The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151; the i7 uses Intel BGA 1224.
• Memory Support: The Xeon supports DDR4; the i7 supports DDR3.
• Memory Bandwidth: The Xeon lists 42.7 GB/s; the i7 has no listed bandwidth.
• ECC Memory: Supported on the Xeon; not on the i7.
• Integrated Graphics: The Xeon has UHD Graphics P630; the i7 has Intel HD 4000.
• PCIe: The Xeon has Gen 3, 16 Lanes; the i7 has no PCIe information.
• Market Segment: The Xeon is Server/Workstation; the i7 is Mobile.
• Release Date: The Xeon launched in 2018; the i7 in 2012.
• Launch MSRP: The Xeon launched at $193; the i7 has no listed MSRP.
• Part Number: The Xeon is SR3WV; the i7 is SR0UU.

The Verdict

The data points to the Core i7-3840QM as the faster processor in every benchmark category. It wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 2% to 2.9%. The i7's thread advantage is the likely driver: 8 threads versus 4 threads enables better multi-core scaling, while its 3.80 GHz boost clock helps it edge out the Xeon even in single-core tests.

However, the Xeon E-2104G is not without merit. It offers ECC memory support, a feature absent from the i7, and uses a newer 14 nm process with DDR4 memory support. Its 65 W TDP is higher than the i7's 45 W, but it is a socketed workstation part with a $193 launch MSRP, designed for servers and workstations where stability and error correction matter more than raw speed.

The choice depends on the use case. For workstation builds requiring ECC memory and a modern socket, the Xeon is the appropriate pick, despite its benchmark deficits. For raw performance in a mobile form factor or any workload that benefits from additional threads, the i7 is clearly superior. The i7's average benchmark score of 1416 versus 1402, combined with its win in every direct comparison, makes it the stronger performer. The Xeon's edge lies in platform features, not speed.