Intel Core i7-3840QM vs Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark database records six head-to-head comparisons between the Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 and the Intel Core i7-3840QM, and the Xeon wins all six. The margins are narrow, but they are consistent across every Cinebench test generation. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 503 against the i7's 498, a 1% advantage. Single-core R15 shows the Xeon at 71 versus 70, a 1.4% lead, the largest delta in the entire comparison.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon repeats the pattern: 2099 multicore against 2079, again a 1% gap, and 296 single-core against 293, also 1%. Cinebench R23 follows with 4999 multicore versus 4952, a 0.9% edge, and 705 single-core versus 699, another 0.9% win. The data does not show a single test where the Core i7-3840QM pulls ahead. The Xeon's wins are small in percentage terms, but they are uniform, which suggests a consistent underlying advantage rather than a test-specific quirk.

The average benchmark score in the database tells a similar story. The Xeon sits at 1446, while the i7-3840QM averages 1416. That difference places the Xeon at the 38th percentile of all CPUs and the i7 at the 37th percentile. For context, the Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 6378 at 1447 (0.1% behind) and the Intel Core i5-7300HQ at 1448 (0.1% behind), while the AMD Ryzen 3 2200GE trails by 0.1% and the Ryzen 5 2400G by 0.5%. The i7's nearest rivals are the AMD Ryzen 7 2700U and AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314, both at 1415, and the Intel Core i5-4460 at 1415, with the Core i7-2700K slightly ahead at 1419. These percentile positions confirm that both processors are mid-pack performers, but the Xeon has a measurable, if modest, statistical edge.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 wins all six recorded Cinebench tests. The closest margin is 0.9% in both R23 multicore and R23 single-core, while the largest margin is 1.4% in R15 single-core.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in multi-core workloads?

A: In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 503 versus 498, a 1% lead. In R20 multicore, it is 2099 versus 2079, also 1%. In R23 multicore, it is 4999 versus 4952, a 0.9% advantage.

Q: Does the Core i7-3840QM have any benchmark where it beats the Xeon?

A: No. The database records six head-to-head benchmarks, and the Core i7-3840QM wins zero of them. The Xeon leads in every single-core and multi-core test.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The Xeon's average score of 1446 is nearly identical to the AMD Opteron 6378 (1447) and the Intel Core i5-7300HQ (1448), and slightly above the AMD Ryzen 3 2200GE (1444) and Ryzen 5 2400G (1439). The i7's average of 1416 matches the AMD Ryzen 7 2700U, AMD Ryzen Embedded R2314, and Intel Core i5-4460, while the Core i7-2700K sits slightly higher at 1419.

Q: What is the difference in their overall percentile rankings?

A: The Xeon ranks at the 38th percentile of all CPUs, while the Core i7-3840QM ranks at the 37th percentile. The gap is one percentile point, consistent with the small but consistent benchmark deltas.

Q: Are the benchmark differences large enough to be decisive in real-world use?

A: The recorded deltas range from 0.9% to 1.4%, which is a narrow margin. The data indicates the Xeon is consistently ahead, but the practical impact in everyday tasks would be minimal in most scenarios.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark results, the Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5 wins every measured category. There is no workload in the database where the Core i7-3840QM takes the lead. The Xeon's advantages span both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench tests, which means it is not favoring one type of workload over another. It simply performs slightly better across the board.

For users prioritizing multi-core rendering tasks, the Xeon's R23 multicore score of 4999 versus 4952 gives it a small edge. For single-threaded responsiveness, the Xeon's R23 single-core score of 705 versus 699 is equally consistent. The i7-3840QM, by contrast, has no recorded win in any test, so it cannot be recommended for any specific benchmark category based on this data.

The i7 does have a Geekbench entry in the database, with a multicore score of 2111 and a single-core score of 628, but the Xeon has no Geekbench result recorded, so a direct comparison in that suite is not possible. In the tests where both are measured, the Xeon is the sole winner.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The Xeon E3-1505L v5 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz and a boost clock of 2.80 GHz, while the Core i7-3840QM runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost. The Xeon's clocks are lower, yet it still wins in benchmarks, which points to architectural efficiency rather than raw frequency.

Thermal design power is a major distinction: the Xeon is rated at 25 watts, while the i7-3840QM is rated at 45 watts. The Xeon delivers its benchmark lead at nearly half the TDP. The sockets differ as well: the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1440, while the i7 uses Intel BGA 1224, meaning they are not interchangeable in the same motherboard.

Memory support splits them further. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The i7 supports only DDR3, also dual-channel, but the database does not list a memory bandwidth figure. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the i7. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the i7's PCIe information is not recorded.

Integrated graphics differ: the Xeon has HD Graphics P530, and the i7 has Intel HD 4000. The Xeon's launch MSRP is $433, while the i7 has no recorded launch price. The Xeon's part number is SR2E0, and the i7's is SR0UU. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the i7's production status is not recorded.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E3-1505L v5 is built on Intel's Skylake architecture, specifically the Skylake-H codename, using a 14 nm process node. The Core i7-3840QM uses the older Ivy Bridge architecture, also with the Ivy Bridge codename, on a 22 nm node. This process shrink is a major factor in the Xeon's efficiency, as it achieves better benchmark scores while consuming 25 watts versus the i7's 45 watts.

The transistor counts reflect the generational gap. The Xeon packs 2,300 million transistors on a 122 mm² die, while the i7 has 1,400 million transistors on a 160 mm² die. The Xeon fits more transistors into a smaller area, which is consistent with the move from 22 nm to 14 nm manufacturing. The foundry is Intel for both.

Cache structures are identical in configuration: both have 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Neither has a 3D V-Cache. The core and thread counts match as well, with 4 cores and 8 threads on each processor. The Xeon's generation is listed as Xeon E3 (Skylake-H), while the i7 is in the Core i7 (Ivy Bridge) generation.

The Xeon's server and workstation market segment is reflected in its ECC support and its memory flexibility across DDR3 and DDR4. The i7 is a mobile part, and its lack of ECC and narrower memory support align with that positioning. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option on either.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon E3-1505L v5. It wins all six recorded benchmarks, holds a higher average score (1446 versus 1416), and ranks one percentile higher. The margins are small, between 0.9% and 1.4%, but they are consistent across every test. For a builder choosing between these two, the Xeon is the better performer in the measured workloads.

The Xeon's lower TDP of 25 watts versus 45 watts makes it the more power-efficient option, and it does so while supporting ECC memory and both DDR3 and DDR4. That combination suits a workstation or server environment where reliability and memory flexibility matter. The i7-3840QM, with no benchmark wins and no ECC support, is harder to justify from this data, especially given that it draws nearly double the power.

However, the i7 is not without a place. Its higher base and boost clocks (2.80 GHz and 3.80 GHz) could appeal to users who prioritize raw frequency in lightly threaded tasks, but the recorded benchmarks show the Xeon still wins single-core tests despite lower clocks. The i7's mobile segment designation and the lack of a recorded launch price suggest it was aimed at a different market, but performance-wise, the Xeon is the stronger chip.

The verdict is simple: if the benchmark results matter, pick the Xeon. If power efficiency and ECC support matter, pick the Xeon. If the only consideration is a specific motherboard socket, then the choice is dictated by platform compatibility, but based on performance data alone, the Xeon E3-1505L v5 is the superior processor.