Intel Core i7-4810MQ vs Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data delivers an unusually clean sweep. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins every single head-to-head comparison against the Intel Core i7-4810MQ, across all six Cinebench tests. There are no mixed results, no close calls in one discipline and a reversal in another; the Xeon simply posts a higher score in every measured workload.

Looking at the multicore results first, the margin is consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 560 against the i7's 516, a delta of 8.5 percent. The R20 multicore test shows 2336 versus 2154, an 8.4 percent advantage. The R23 multicore run repeats the pattern with 5564 against 5129, again an 8.5 percent gap. This consistency across three generations of the Cinebench suite suggests the performance difference is structural, not an artifact of any single test version.

The single-core results tell the same story with nearly identical margins. Cinebench R15 single-core has the Xeon at 78 and the i7 at 72, an 8.3 percent lead. R20 single-core shows 329 versus 304, an 8.2 percent edge. R23 single-core completes the set with 785 against 724, an 8.4 percent advantage. The fact that the single-threaded deltas are so close to the multi-threaded ones indicates the Xeon's advantage is not about scaling across cores; it is a per-thread efficiency win that carries over to threaded workloads.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce the hierarchy, though they include additional tests. The i7-4810MQ has an average score of 1651, which places it in the 40th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 averages 1609, sitting in the 39th percentile. The i7's higher average comes from its inclusion of Geekbench results, which are not recorded for the Xeon in this dataset. The Geekbench figures for the i7 are 3203 multicore and 1106 single-core. Those numbers do not change the head-to-head outcome, which is exclusively Cinebench-based, but they do explain why the aggregate scores differ despite the Xeon winning every shared test.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel generations and target different market segments, which explains the benchmark pattern. The Xeon E3-1240L v5 is built on the Skylake architecture, specifically Skylake-DT, and uses a 14 nm process node. The Core i7-4810MQ is a Haswell part, fabricated on the older 22 nm node. That process shrink alone gives Skylake a transistor density and power efficiency advantage, even though the Xeon carries more transistors overall: 1,750 million versus 1,400 million. The die sizes reflect the node difference as well, with the Skylake die at 122 mm² compared to Haswell's 177 mm².

Both chips have 4 cores and 8 threads, so the core count is identical. The cache hierarchy, however, favors the Xeon. The L1 and L2 caches are the same at 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core respectively, but the L3 cache is 8 MB shared on the Xeon versus 6 MB shared on the i7. That extra 2 MB of last-level cache is a meaningful contributor to the Xeon's consistent single-thread lead, since more cache reduces memory access latency for frequently used data.

Clock speeds tell a more nuanced story. The i7-4810MQ has a higher base clock of 2.80 GHz and a higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz, compared to the Xeon's 2.10 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost. Despite the lower clock speeds, the Xeon still wins every benchmark. This is a classic case where architectural efficiency overcomes raw frequency. The Skylake core delivers more instructions per clock than Haswell, and the larger L3 cache amplifies that advantage.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The Xeon has a TDP of 25 watts, while the i7-4810MQ is rated at 47 watts. That is a 22-watt difference, nearly a 47 percent reduction in thermal design power for the Xeon, yet it still outperforms the i7 in all measured tests. The Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation, which explains the low TDP: it is designed for dense, always-on deployments where heat and power are critical. The i7 is a Mobile part, built for laptops where the 47-watt envelope was typical for high-end Haswell quad-cores.

Memory support also diverges. The Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4, with dual-channel memory bus and a recorded bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s. The i7 supports only DDR3, also dual-channel, with a lower bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The Xeon's ability to use DDR4 at higher speeds is another factor in its favor. Additionally, the Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i7 does not. The i7 does include integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 4600, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed, which is typical for server processors where a discrete GPU or a BMC handles display output.

Both CPUs use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The sockets differ entirely: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, the i7 uses Intel Socket G3. The release dates show the Xeon launched on 2015-10-18, while the i7 arrived earlier on 2014-01-19. Both are end-of-life products now.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240L v5 wins everywhere the benchmark data covers. That is the simplest way to state it. It wins all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, by margins between 8.2 and 8.5 percent. For users who prioritize raw compute performance in CPU-bound tasks such as rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, or any heavily threaded workload, the Xeon is the clear choice based on the recorded scores.

The i7-4810MQ does have one genuine advantage that is not in the Cinebench results: integrated graphics. The Intel HD 4600 is listed for the i7, and while no benchmark scores are provided for it, the feature itself means the i7 can drive a display without a discrete GPU. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate graphics card for any visual output. In a mobile context, that is a significant practical difference. The i7 is also a Mobile segment part, meaning it was designed for laptop integration, while the Xeon targets servers and workstations.

The i7's higher clock speeds, 2.80 GHz base and 3.80 GHz boost, are not enough to overcome the Xeon's architectural lead in the benchmarks, but they do suggest that in workloads not captured by Cinebench, such as lightly threaded legacy applications that are heavily dependent on raw clock rate, the i7 might close the gap. The data does not test such scenarios, however, so this remains speculative from the recorded facts.

For power-sensitive deployments, the Xeon is the obvious winner. Its 25-watt TDP versus the i7's 47 watts is a huge difference. In a server rack with dozens of CPUs, that translates to substantially lower cooling requirements and energy consumption. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server environments. The i7 lacks ECC support entirely.

The memory bandwidth difference also favors the Xeon: 34.1 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s. Applications that stream large datasets, such as database workloads or in-memory analytics, will benefit from the Xeon's higher bandwidth. The Xeon's support for DDR4 memory gives it a future-proofing advantage as well, since DDR3 is an aging standard.

The Verdict

Based solely on the database records, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the superior processor in every measured metric. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests by margins of roughly 8 percent. It does so while consuming nearly half the power, 25 watts versus 47 watts, and while offering ECC memory support and DDR4 compatibility. The Xeon's lower clock speeds, 2.10 GHz base versus 2.80 GHz, and 3.20 GHz boost versus 3.80 GHz, do not hurt it in the benchmarks; the Skylake architecture and larger L3 cache more than compensate.

The Core i7-4810MQ is not a bad processor. Its average benchmark score of 1651 actually places it in the 40th percentile of all CPUs, one point higher than the Xeon's 39th percentile, because the Geekbench results are included in its aggregate. But in a direct comparison, the i7 loses every shared test. Its sole practical advantages are the integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics and its mobile form factor, which makes it suitable for laptops. The Xeon is a socketed server chip with no integrated graphics and a 25-watt TDP that suits it for compact, low-power server builds.

The verdict is straightforward: if the workload is compute-heavy and the platform can accommodate a discrete GPU, the Xeon E3-1240L v5 is the better choice. If the application requires a mobile processor with integrated graphics, the i7-4810MQ is the only one of the two that fits that role. For everything else, the data points decisively to the Xeon.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-4810MQ has an average benchmark score of 1651, compared to the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5's 1609. This is because the i7's average includes Geekbench scores, which are not recorded for the Xeon.

Q: How much power does each CPU consume?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has a TDP of 25 watts. The Intel Core i7-4810MQ has a TDP of 47 watts.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-4810MQ does not support ECC.

Q: What are the clock speeds of each processor?

A: The Xeon E3-1240L v5 has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Core i7-4810MQ has a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz.

Q: Which CPU has more L3 cache?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Intel Core i7-4810MQ has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Does either processor have integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i7-4810MQ includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon E3-1240L v5 has no integrated graphics listed in the database.