Intel Core i7-4760HQ vs Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4760HQ and Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 are two end-of-life Intel processors aimed at very different segments: one is a mobile Haswell part with integrated graphics, the other a server/workstation Ivy Bridge chip with ECC support. Despite their architectural and market differences, the benchmark data shows they are remarkably close in raw compute performance. Across the entire Cinebench suite, the i7-4760HQ wins all six head-to-head comparisons, but the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 0.6% to 1.3%. This makes the choice between them far less about raw speed and far more about platform features, memory support, and intended use case.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data paints a clear picture: the Intel Core i7-4760HQ has a slight but consistent edge in every single test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 539 against the Xeon's 535, a 0.7% lead. That advantage persists in R20 multi-core (2249 vs 2232, a 0.8% delta) and R23 multi-core (5355 vs 5316, a 0.7% delta). The single-core results tell the same story, with the i7-4760HQ leading by 1.3% in R15 single-core (76 vs 75), 0.6% in R20 single-core (317 vs 315), and 0.8% in R23 single-core (756 vs 750).

These margins are so small they fall within typical run-to-run variance, but the consistency across all six tests suggests a real, if minor, performance advantage for the mobile part. The i7-4760HQ’s higher boost clock of 3.30 GHz compared to the Xeon’s 2.70 GHz likely explains its lead in single-threaded workloads, while the Xeon’s larger core count (6 vs 4) and bigger L3 cache (15 MB vs 6 MB) are not enough to overcome the clock speed deficit in these specific tests.

Where the Xeon E5-1428L v2 genuinely wins is outside the Cinebench numbers. It supports ECC memory, a critical feature for data integrity in server environments, and offers triple-channel DDR3 memory with a higher bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s compared to the i7’s dual-channel 25.6 GB/s. It also provides more PCIe lanes (24 vs 16), making it the better fit for systems needing more expansion. The i7-4760HQ, on the other hand, is the only one with integrated graphics (Intel HD 5200), making it a complete package for a mobile system without a discrete GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel microarchitectures and are built for different sockets. The Core i7-4760HQ is a Haswell part, codenamed Crystalwell, on the Intel BGA 1364 socket, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 is Ivy Bridge, specifically Ivy Bridge-EN, on Intel Socket 1356. Both are fabricated on Intel’s 22 nm process, but the Xeon packs more transistors: 1,860 million versus the i7’s 1,400 million. The die sizes are close, at 257 mm² for the Xeon and 264 mm² for the i7.

Core and cache configurations diverge significantly. The Xeon has 6 cores and 12 threads, compared to the i7’s 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon also has a much larger shared L3 cache at 15 MB, versus 6 MB on the i7. Both share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) cache sizes. In terms of clocks, the i7 has a lower base clock (2.10 GHz) but a significantly higher boost clock (3.30 GHz), while the Xeon runs at 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost.

Memory support is a major differentiator. Both support DDR3, but the Xeon uses a triple-channel configuration delivering 32.0 GB/s, while the i7 is dual-channel with 25.6 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i7 does not. PCIe connectivity also favors the server part: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 24 lanes, while the i7 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The i7 includes Intel HD 5200 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. The Xeon is a server/workstation part with a launch MSRP of $494, while the i7 is a mobile part with no listed launch MSRP and a 47 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 60 W TDP.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive win for the Core i7-4760HQ comes in Cinebench R15 single-core, where it scores 76 against the Xeon’s 75, a 1.3% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire head-to-head set and reflects the i7’s 3.30 GHz boost clock, which is 0.6 GHz higher than the Xeon’s. In multi-core R15, the i7 leads 539 to 535, a 0.7% margin, showing that the Xeon’s two extra cores cannot fully compensate for the i7’s clock speed advantage in this workload.

The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20. The i7 scores 2249 in multi-core versus 2232 for the Xeon, a 0.8% lead, and 317 in single-core versus 315, a 0.6% lead. The R23 results are similarly tight: 5355 vs 5316 in multi-core (0.7% delta) and 756 vs 750 in single-core (0.8% delta). Across all six tests, the i7 wins by an average of roughly 0.8%, with the Xeon never once taking a victory.

It is worth remembering the Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1537, placing it in the 38th percentile of all CPUs, and its nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-7440HQ, which it beats by 0.7%. The i7-4760HQ has an average score of 1549, also in the 38th percentile, and its closest rival is the Intel Core i5-4690S, which it trails by just 0.1%. Curiously, the two chips are listed as each other’s rivals: the Xeon’s rivals include the i7-4760HQ with a delta of -0.8%, and the i7’s rivals include the Xeon E3-1268L v5 and AMD FX-8350, both at -0.5%, but not the E5-1428L v2 directly in that list.

The Verdict

From the data alone, the Intel Core i7-4760HQ is the faster processor in every benchmark tested, but the margins are negligible. No buyer should choose between these two based on Cinebench scores alone, as the differences of 0.6% to 1.3% are unlikely to be perceptible in real-world use. The decision hinges entirely on the platform and feature set.

Pick the Core i7-4760HQ if you need a mobile processor with integrated graphics (Intel HD 5200), a lower TDP of 47 W, and are working within the Intel BGA 1364 socket. Its higher boost clock makes it marginally better for single-threaded tasks, and it wins all six benchmark comparisons, but its dual-channel memory and lack of ECC support limit its appeal in mission-critical or memory-bandwidth-intensive server roles.

Pick the Xeon E5-1428L v2 if you are building a server or workstation on Socket 1356 and require ECC memory for data reliability. Its triple-channel memory controller provides 32.0 GB/s of bandwidth, a 25% improvement over the i7’s 25.6 GB/s, and its 24 PCIe lanes offer more expansion headroom. The two extra cores and 15 MB of L3 cache are architectural advantages, even if they do not translate into Cinebench wins at these clock speeds. The Xeon also has a launch MSRP of $494, though pricing should not be the deciding factor per this analysis. In short: the i7 is the slightly faster chip; the Xeon is the more capable platform for server workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Core i7-4760HQ has a boost clock of 3.30 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5-1428L v2 boosts to 2.70 GHz.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1428L v2 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-1428L v2 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-4760HQ does not.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1428L v2 provides 32.0 GB/s via triple-channel DDR3, while the Core i7-4760HQ offers 25.6 GB/s via dual-channel DDR3.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon E5-1428L v2 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Core i7-4760HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: In which benchmark does the Core i7-4760HQ have its largest lead?

A: The i7-4760HQ has its largest lead in Cinebench R15 single-core, scoring 76 against the Xeon’s 75, a 1.3% advantage.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core i7-4760HQ includes Intel HD 5200 integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-1428L v2 has no integrated graphics.