Intel Core i7-4600M vs Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmarks in the database?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 wins all five recorded head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Intel Core i7-4600M does not win a single test in the comparison set.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon leads by 17.5% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (323 vs. 275) and by 17.3% in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1346 vs. 1147). The margin remains nearly identical at 17.4% in Cinebench R23 multi-core (3207 vs. 2732).

Q: Does the Core i7-4600M win in single-core tests?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 also wins the single-core comparisons, with a 17.4% advantage in both Cinebench R20 single-core (189 vs. 161) and Cinebench R23 single-core (452 vs. 385).

Q: What is the market segment difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-2603 v3 is a server/workstation part, while the Core i7-4600M is a mobile processor. The Xeon uses an Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, whereas the Core i7 uses Intel Socket G3.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-4600M does not. The Xeon also supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus, while the Core i7 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon E5-2603 v3 has an average benchmark score of 1103, placing it at the 31st percentile of all CPUs. The Core i7-4600M has an average score of 1093, placing it at the 30th percentile. The difference is minimal, under 1%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors share the same fundamental Haswell architecture, but they are built for entirely different platforms. The Xeon E5-2603 v3 uses the Haswell-EP codename and is fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The Core i7-4600M uses the plain Haswell codename, also on 22 nm, but packs only 960 million transistors onto a much smaller 131 mm² die.

The core configuration is the most striking architectural divergence. The Xeon has six physical cores with six threads (no Hyper-Threading), while the Core i7 has two physical cores with four threads (Hyper-Threading enabled). This means the Xeon has three times as many physical execution units, which directly explains its multi-core benchmark superiority.

Cache hierarchies also differ substantially. Both allocate 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 15 MB on the Xeon versus 4 MB on the Core i7. The Xeon's much larger last-level cache supports its server workload profile, where larger working sets benefit from more on-chip storage.

Memory architecture is another fundamental split. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, delivering a recorded memory bandwidth of 51.2 GB/s. The Core i7 uses DDR3 over a dual-channel bus, with 25.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth. The Xeon also features ECC memory support, a critical server feature, which the Core i7 lacks entirely.

PCI Express connectivity differs as well. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 CPU lanes, while the Core i7 provides Gen 3 with 16 CPU lanes. This reflects the Xeon's role in multi-GPU and high-I/O server systems versus the Core i7's mobile integration.

The Core i7 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), while the Xeon has no integrated GPU. The Xeon relies on a discrete graphics solution, which is standard for workstation and server platforms.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the Xeon E5-2603 v3 across all five recorded tests, but the margins and context tell a more nuanced story. The Xeon wins every Cinebench comparison, from R15 multi-core through R23 single-core, with deltas consistently around 17.4%. This consistency suggests a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific fluke.

The Xeon's wins come from its six physical cores and larger 15 MB L3 cache. In multi-threaded rendering workloads, the six-core count provides raw parallel throughput that the Core i7's two cores cannot match, even with Hyper-Threading. The 17.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 17.3% lead in R20 multi-core reflect this core-count advantage directly.

Surprisingly, the Xeon also wins single-core tests, despite its lower base clock of 1600 MHz versus the Core i7's 2900 MHz base and 3600 MHz boost. The Xeon scores 189 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 161 for the Core i7, a 17.4% lead. This indicates that the Xeon's Haswell-EP implementation delivers higher per-clock performance in these specific tests, likely due to its larger cache and server-grade memory subsystem.

The Core i7's strengths are not visible in the recorded benchmarks because none of the tests favor its attributes. Its higher clock speeds, integrated graphics, and lower TDP of 37 watts versus 85 watts are qualitative advantages for mobile use, but the database measurements do not include any test where the Core i7 wins. The Core i7 does have additional Geekbench scores recorded (1930 multi-core, 1018 single-core), but these have no corresponding Xeon results for direct comparison.

For users running Cinebench-style rendering workloads, the Xeon is the clear choice. For users needing integrated graphics, lower power consumption, or a mobile form factor, the Core i7's platform advantages matter, but the recorded performance data does not show a single benchmark win in its favor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category:

• Cores: Xeon has 6 cores, Core i7 has 2 cores
• Threads: Xeon has 6 threads, Core i7 has 4 threads
• Base clock: Xeon runs at 1600.00 MHz, Core i7 at 2.90 GHz
• Boost clock: Xeon has no boost clock recorded, Core i7 boosts to 3.60 GHz
• TDP: Xeon is rated at 85 watts, Core i7 at 37 watts
• Socket: Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, Core i7 uses Intel Socket G3
• Codename: Xeon is Haswell-EP, Core i7 is Haswell
• Transistors: Xeon has 2,600 million, Core i7 has 960 million
• Die size: Xeon is 356 mm², Core i7 is 131 mm²
• L3 cache: Xeon has 15 MB shared, Core i7 has 4 MB shared
• Memory support: Xeon uses DDR4, Core i7 uses DDR3
• Memory bus: Xeon is quad-channel, Core i7 is dual-channel
• Memory bandwidth: Xeon has 51.2 GB/s, Core i7 has 25.6 GB/s
• ECC memory: Xeon supports it, Core i7 does not
• PCIe lanes: Xeon has 40 lanes, Core i7 has 16 lanes
• Integrated graphics: Xeon has none, Core i7 has Intel HD 4600
• Market segment: Xeon is server/workstation, Core i7 is mobile
• Release date: Xeon launched 2014-09-07, Core i7 launched 2013-08-31
• Launch MSRP: Xeon at $213, Core i7 at $346
• Part number: Xeon is SR20A, Core i7 is SR1H7

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a uniform margin across all five tests, with the Xeon winning each by roughly 17.4%. This consistency is remarkable and points to a fixed architectural advantage rather than test-specific behavior.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 323 against the Core i7's 275, a delta of 17.5%. This is the largest margin in the set. The six-core Xeon leverages its additional physical cores effectively in this older rendering test, which scales well with core count.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a nearly identical story: Xeon at 1346, Core i7 at 1147, a 17.3% delta. The slight decrease in margin from R15 to R20 suggests the newer workload slightly narrows the gap, but the Xeon still maintains a decisive lead.

The single-core tests are where the data becomes most interesting. Cinebench R20 single-core has the Xeon at 189 and the Core i7 at 161, a 17.4% delta. The Core i7's much higher clock speeds (2.90 GHz base, 3.60 GHz boost versus 1.60 GHz base with no boost) should theoretically give it an advantage in single-threaded work. The fact that it loses by the same margin as multi-core tests indicates that the Xeon's Haswell-EP cores deliver substantially higher instructions per clock in this workload, likely aided by the 15 MB L3 cache and quad-channel memory subsystem.

Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the pattern: Xeon at 3207, Core i7 at 2732, a 17.4% delta. The absolute scores are higher in R23 than R20, reflecting the newer benchmark's scaling, but the relative gap remains fixed.

Cinebench R23 single-core closes the set: Xeon at 452, Core i7 at 385, again a 17.4% delta. This confirms that the Xeon's single-core performance advantage is not a fluke of one benchmark version but a consistent characteristic across the entire Cinebench family.

The wins tally is unambiguous: the Xeon wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with zero wins for the Core i7.

The Verdict

The recorded data leaves no ambiguity: the Intel Xeon E5-2603 v3 is the faster processor in every benchmark comparison available in the database. It wins all five Cinebench tests, covering both multi-core and single-core workloads, with margins consistently around 17.4%.

For multi-threaded rendering and compute workloads, the Xeon's six physical cores and 15 MB L3 cache deliver a decisive advantage over the Core i7's two cores and 4 MB cache. The 17.5% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and 17.3% lead in R20 multi-core quantify this gap precisely. Anyone choosing between these two for server or workstation rendering tasks should favor the Xeon without hesitation.

The single-core results are the more surprising finding. Despite the Core i7's 2.90 GHz base clock and 3.60 GHz boost, the Xeon at a fixed 1.60 GHz wins single-core tests by the same 17.4% margin. The database data suggests the Xeon's Haswell-EP architecture delivers superior per-thread efficiency in these workloads, and the larger cache likely plays a supporting role.

The Core i7-4600M is not without merits, but those merits lie outside the recorded benchmarks. It offers integrated graphics, a 37-watt TDP versus 85 watts, and a mobile socket platform. Its dual-channel DDR3 memory and 16 PCIe lanes suit a laptop or compact mobile workstation. The launch MSRP of the Core i7 was $346, while the Xeon launched at $213, but the data shows the lower-priced Xeon outperforming it across the board in compute benchmarks.

The average benchmark scores tell a complementary story. The Xeon averages 1103, placing at the 31st percentile of all CPUs. The Core i7 averages 1093, at the 30th percentile. The near-identical averages reflect the narrow overall margin between these two end-of-life processors in the broader CPU landscape, but the head-to-head results show the Xeon consistently on top in direct comparison.

For a server or workstation build where rendering performance is the priority, the Xeon E5-2603 v3 is the clear pick from the data. For a mobile platform requiring integrated graphics and low power draw, the Core i7-4600M remains a functional choice, but the benchmark record shows it loses every direct performance comparison. The verdict is straightforward: the Xeon wins on performance, and the Core i7 wins only on platform features that fall outside the measured tests.