Intel Core i7-4600U vs Intel Xeon W3540 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-4600U has an average benchmark score of 931, while the Intel Xeon W3540 scores 913. The i7-4600U sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, and the Xeon W3540 sits at the 24th percentile.

Q: How do the two compare in multi-core rendering performance?

A: The Xeon W3540 wins every recorded multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2652 versus 2306 for the i7-4600U, a 13% advantage. The gap is consistent across Cinebench R15 (267 vs 232) and R20 (1113 vs 968), all showing roughly 13% leads for the Xeon.

Q: Does the i7-4600U win any benchmark category?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon W3540 wins all five recorded tests. The i7-4600U has zero wins, while the Xeon has five wins across every Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 benchmark, both single-core and multi-core.

Q: What are the core and thread counts of each processor?

A: The Core i7-4600U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon W3540 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This means the Xeon has double the physical cores and double the logical threads of the i7.

Q: Do both processors support the same memory type?

A: Both support DDR3 memory. However, the Xeon W3540 specifies a triple-channel memory bus, while the i7-4600U does not list a memory bus configuration. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Xeon W3540 has a base clock of 2.93 GHz, which is higher than the i7-4600U's 2.10 GHz. The i7-4600U has a higher boost clock at 3.30 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.20 GHz.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i7-4600U and Intel Xeon W3540 come from fundamentally different eras and design philosophies. The i7-4600U is a Haswell-ULT mobile part built on a 22 nm process, while the Xeon W3540 is a Nehalem-generation Bloomfield workstation/server chip fabricated on 45 nm. This process gap explains much of the efficiency difference: the i7-4600U has a TDP of 15 watts, whereas the Xeon W3540 draws 130 watts, an 8.7x difference in thermal envelope.

The transistor counts reflect the architectural split. The i7-4600U packs 1,300 million transistors into a 118 mm² die, while the Xeon W3540 uses 731 million transistors across a much larger 263 mm² die. The newer, denser process allows the mobile chip to fit nearly twice the transistor count into less than half the die area. The cache hierarchy also differs: both share 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the i7-4600U has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon W3540 doubles that to 8 MB.

The socket and market positioning diverge sharply. The i7-4600U uses Intel BGA 1168, a soldered mobile socket, and targets the Mobile segment. The Xeon W3540 uses Intel Socket 1366, a desktop/workstation socket, and targets the Server/Workstation segment. The Xeon also carries ECC memory support and a triple-channel memory bus, features absent from the i7-4600U. The i7 integrates Intel HD 5000 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i7 does not list a production status.

The PCIe generation also differs: the Xeon W3540 supports PCIe Gen 2, while the i7-4600U does not list PCIe information. The release dates are separated by over four years: the i7-4600U launched in August 2013, while the Xeon W3540 launched in March 2009. The i7-4600U's part number is not listed, but the Xeon carries the part number SLBEX. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither lists a launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear split based on workload character and platform constraints. If the priority is raw compute throughput in threaded rendering tasks, the Intel Xeon W3540 is the stronger part. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks by roughly 13% margins, including both single-core and multi-core tests. The Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads, combined with its higher base clock of 2.93 GHz, give it a consistent edge in every recorded Cinebench workload.

However, the Intel Core i7-4600U is the more modern and efficient design. Its 22 nm process, 15 watt TDP, and integrated graphics make it suitable for mobile or low-power systems. The i7-4600U's average benchmark score of 931 is slightly higher than the Xeon's 913, which suggests that in the overall database ranking, the i7-4600U edges ahead despite losing every head-to-head test. This is because the i7-4600U has additional Geekbench scores (1664 multi-core, 889 single-core) that are not present in the Xeon's benchmark list, boosting its average.

For a server or workstation application where ECC memory, triple-channel bandwidth, and multi-threaded rendering matter, the Xeon W3540 is the logical pick. For a low-power mobile system where integrated graphics and efficiency are paramount, the i7-4600U is the only viable option, as the Xeon lacks integrated graphics entirely and draws 130 watts. The percentile rankings are nearly identical (25th vs 24th), so in the broader CPU landscape, both occupy similar performance tiers.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Core i7-4600U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon W3540 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ significantly: 2.10 GHz for the i7 versus 2.93 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are closer, with the i7 at 3.30 GHz and the Xeon at 3.20 GHz, giving the i7 a 100 MHz advantage in peak single-thread boost.

The TDP difference is dramatic: 15 watts for the i7-4600U versus 130 watts for the Xeon W3540. The i7 uses socket Intel BGA 1168, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366. The architecture and codename differ (Haswell / Haswell-ULT versus Nehalem / Bloomfield), as do the process nodes (22 nm versus 45 nm). Transistor counts are 1,300 million versus 731 million, and die sizes are 118 mm² versus 263 mm².

Cache configurations differ only in L3: the i7 has 4 MB shared, the Xeon has 8 MB shared. L1 and L2 are identical at 64 KB and 256 KB per core. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Xeon specifies triple-channel and ECC support, while the i7 lists neither. The i7 has integrated Intel HD 5000 graphics; the Xeon has none. The i7 targets Mobile, the Xeon targets Server/Workstation. The Xeon is end-of-life and has a part number (SLBEX), while the i7 has neither. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2; the i7 lists no PCIe generation.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W3540 dominates every recorded head-to-head benchmark, but the margins are remarkably consistent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 267 against the i7-4600U's 232, a 13.1% advantage. The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows a nearly identical picture: 1113 for the Xeon versus 968 for the i7, a 13% lead.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 157 versus 136 for the i7, a 13.4% gap. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 374 versus 325, a 13.1% difference. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test rounds out the sweep: 2652 for the Xeon against 2306 for the i7, another 13% margin.

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Across five different tests, spanning both single-core and multi-core workloads, the Xeon's advantage hovers between 13.0% and 13.4%. This suggests a systemic performance difference rather than workload-specific behavior. The Xeon's higher base clock (2.93 GHz versus 2.10 GHz) likely explains part of the gap, as does its additional two physical cores and four extra threads.

The i7-4600U's higher boost clock (3.30 GHz versus 3.20 GHz) does not translate into a single-core win. Even in single-threaded Cinebench tests, the Xeon maintains its 13% edge, which indicates that the older Nehalem architecture's higher sustained clock and possibly better memory subsystem overcome the newer Haswell design's efficiency advantages.

The i7-4600U does have Geekbench scores that the Xeon lacks: 1664 multi-core and 889 single-core. These are not part of the head-to-head comparison, but they contribute to the i7's higher average benchmark score of 931 versus 913 for the Xeon. This means that in the broader database, the i7-4600U ranks slightly higher overall, even though it loses every direct comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W3540 wins in all performance-oriented scenarios recorded in the database. Every Cinebench test, from R15 to R23, both single-core and multi-core, favors the Xeon by roughly 13%. This makes the Xeon the clear choice for multi-threaded rendering, workstation compute, or any workload that can utilize its 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon's ECC memory support and triple-channel memory bus also position it for server-class applications where data integrity and memory bandwidth are critical.

The i7-4600U wins in efficiency and integration. Its 15 watt TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon's 130 watts, making it suitable for thermally constrained mobile devices. The integrated Intel HD 5000 graphics means the i7 can drive a display without a discrete GPU, which the Xeon cannot do. The i7's newer 22 nm process and higher transistor density (1,300 million versus 731 million) indicate a more modern design that likely offers better performance per watt, even if the raw benchmark scores lag.

In terms of database ranking, the i7-4600U has a higher average benchmark score (931 vs 913) and a slightly better percentile position (25th vs 24th). This is driven by the i7's Geekbench results, which are absent from the Xeon's recorded benchmarks. So for a user evaluating overall CPU capability across a wider benchmark suite, the i7-4600U edges ahead, despite losing every head-to-head Cinebench test.

The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G6405T (average score 915, delta -0.2%) and AMD Ryzen 3 3250U (908, delta 0.5%). The i7-4600U's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-870 (928, delta 0.3%) and Intel Core i5-4288U (927, delta 0.4%). These rival comparisons show both processors clustering within a tight performance band, with the i7-4600U's closest competitors all scoring within 0.7% of its average.

The practical takeaway: choose the Xeon W3540 for maximum multi-threaded compute in a desktop or server context where power is not a constraint. Choose the i7-4600U for mobile, low-power, or integrated-graphics applications where the 15 watt TDP and built-in GPU are decisive advantages. The data does not support the i7 as a faster processor in any recorded benchmark, but its efficiency and integration make it the only sensible option for its target market segment.