CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E-2124 and Intel Core i7-4810MQ are both end-of-life, quad-core Intel processors, but they target entirely different market segments. The Xeon E-2124 is a server/workstation part built on the Coffee Lake architecture, while the i7-4810MQ is a mobile Haswell chip. Despite the i7’s hyper-threading advantage, the benchmark data consistently favors the newer Xeon, which posts a perfect 6-0 record in the head-to-head comparisons.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data shows a decisive victory for the Intel Xeon E-2124 across all six Cinebench tests. In the multi-core tests, the Xeon maintains a remarkably consistent lead of 11.8% over the i7-4810MQ. The Cinebench R15 multi-core result shows the Xeon scoring 577 against the i7’s 516, a difference that widens to 2408 versus 2154 in Cinebench R20 and 5734 versus 5129 in Cinebench R23. This consistency suggests the performance gap is structural rather than workload-dependent.

Single-core performance tells a similar story, with the Xeon E-2124 ahead by 11.5% to 12.5% across the three Cinebench generations. The R15 single-core test shows the Xeon at 81 versus 72, while R20 scores 339 against 304. In the most demanding R23 single-core test, the Xeon posts 809 points, a 11.7% advantage over the i7’s 724. This consistent single-threaded lead is particularly notable because it indicates the Xeon’s architectural efficiency and higher clock speeds are delivering tangible results, not just raw core-count scaling.

The average benchmark scores place both processors in the 40th percentile of all CPUs, with the Xeon E-2124 averaging 1658 and the i7-4810MQ averaging 1651. This near-identical overall percentile ranking is somewhat misleading given the head-to-head sweep, but it reflects how both chips compare to the broader CPU landscape. The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-4770HQ (deltaPct -0.1%), the Core i5-4670K (0.2%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 3550H (0.3%), while the i7-4810MQ sits close to the Ryzen 5 3550H (-0.1%) and the Core i5-5675R (0.2%). These rival comparisons show both processors are competitive within their respective performance tiers, even though the Xeon clearly outclasses the mobile chip in direct testing.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, explaining the consistent benchmark results. The Xeon E-2124 uses the Coffee Lake architecture on a 14 nm process, while the i7-4810MQ is based on the older Haswell architecture fabricated on a 22 nm node. This process advantage alone accounts for significant efficiency and frequency differences. The Xeon also has a larger die size at 126 mm² compared to the i7’s 177 mm², which is notable because the Xeon packs more modern transistors into a smaller area.

Core configuration differs in a critical way: both have 4 physical cores, but the i7-4810MQ supports 8 threads via hyper-threading, while the Xeon E-2124 runs with only 4 threads. This means the Xeon is achieving its multi-core wins without the benefit of simultaneous multi-threading, relying instead on higher clock speeds and architectural improvements. The base clock of 3.30 GHz on the Xeon versus 2.80 GHz on the i7, combined with boost clocks of 4.30 GHz versus 3.80 GHz, gives the Xeon a clear frequency advantage that hyper-threading cannot overcome.

Cache hierarchies also differ, with the Xeon E-2124 offering 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 6 MB on the i7-4810MQ. Both processors have identical L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core) configurations. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus delivering 42.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i7-4810MQ uses DDR3 with 25.6 GB/s. This 67% bandwidth advantage for the Xeon is substantial for memory-intensive workloads, though the benchmark results suggest the CPU cores are the primary differentiator.

Other notable differences include ECC memory support on the Xeon, which is absent on the mobile chip, and integrated graphics. The Xeon pairs with UHD Graphics P630 while the i7-4810MQ uses Intel HD 4600. Both processors use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon’s transistor count is not listed in the data, but the i7-4810MQ contains 1,400 million transistors. The Xeon’s TDP is 71 watts versus 47 watts for the mobile chip, reflecting its higher performance envelope and desktop-oriented design.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E-2124 is the superior processor in every benchmark tested. With a 6-0 head-to-head record and consistent double-digit percentage leads, the Xeon offers better performance across all Cinebench workloads, both single-core and multi-core. The i7-4810MQ’s hyper-threading does not compensate for its lower clock speeds, older architecture, and reduced cache. For any workload where CPU performance matters, the Xeon E-2124 is the clear choice.

The i7-4810MQ’s only advantages are its lower TDP of 47 watts versus 71 watts and its mobile socket (Intel Socket G3), which makes it suitable for laptops where power consumption and form factor are priorities. However, the Xeon’s server/workstation market segment and Socket 1151 compatibility make it the better option for desktop systems. The launch MSRP reflects this positioning: the Xeon E-2124 was priced at $198, while the i7-4810MQ launched at $378, though pricing considerations should not influence a purely performance-based analysis.

For users building a workstation or server, the Xeon E-2124 provides superior raw compute performance with ECC memory support, making it the more robust choice. The i7-4810MQ may still serve adequately in a laptop where its lower power draw is essential, but it cannot match the Xeon’s performance metrics. The benchmark data does not support any scenario where the i7-4810MQ wins on performance grounds.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 scores 5734 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 11.8% higher than the Intel Core i7-4810MQ’s 5129.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-4810MQ’s hyper-threading help it win any benchmarks?

A: No. Despite having 8 threads versus the Xeon E-2124’s 4 threads, the i7-4810MQ loses all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with the Xeon winning every multi-core test by 11.8%.

Q: What memory types do these processors support?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 supports DDR4 memory with a dual-channel bus and 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Intel Core i7-4810MQ supports DDR3 memory with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon E-2124 and the Intel Core i7-4810MQ are in the 40th percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 1658 and 1651 respectively.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 has a boost clock of 4.30 GHz, compared to the Intel Core i7-4810MQ’s boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Q: Do either of these processors support ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E-2124 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-4810MQ does not have ECC support.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E-2124 wins in every performance category measured by the benchmark suite. Its single-core performance advantage ranges from 11.5% to 12.5% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, making it the superior choice for lightly-threaded applications such as legacy software, certain database queries, or any workload that cannot utilize multiple threads effectively. The Xeon’s multi-core wins of 11.8% across all three Cinebench versions also make it the better option for rendering, compilation, and other parallel workloads, despite having fewer threads than the i7-4810MQ.

The Intel Core i7-4810MQ’s only practical advantage lies in its mobile platform. With a TDP of 47 watts and an Intel Socket G3, it is designed for laptops where the Xeon’s 71-watt TDP and Socket 1151 would be impractical. The i7-4810MQ also has a higher transistor count (1,400 million) and larger die size (177 mm²), though these do not translate into performance benefits. For users requiring ECC memory support, the Xeon E-2124 is the only option, as this feature is absent on the i7-4810MQ.

In terms of raw compute capability, the Xeon E-2124 is the definitive winner. Its architecture is newer (Coffee Lake versus Haswell), its process node is smaller (14 nm versus 22 nm), and its clock speeds are higher. The i7-4810MQ’s hyper-threading does not overcome these fundamental advantages, as evidenced by its consistent losses in all benchmark comparisons. The Xeon’s higher memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s further cements its superiority for data-intensive tasks. The only scenario where the i7-4810MQ makes sense is a mobile deployment where its lower power draw and socket compatibility are mandatory, and even then, its performance will lag behind the Xeon in every measurable way.