Intel Core i7-4810MQ vs Intel Xeon E5-2623 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-2623 v3 and the Intel Core i7-4810MQ are both 22nm Haswell parts with four cores and eight threads, but they target entirely different segments. The Xeon is a server/workstation processor on Socket 2011-3, while the i7 is a mobile chip on Socket G3. Benchmark data shows the Xeon winning all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 9.5% to 10.1%. The i7-4810MQ holds a slight edge in aggregate score (1651 vs 1630) and percentile ranking (40th vs 39th), but that is due to its inclusion of Geekbench results, which the Xeon lacks. The verdict is clear: for raw multi-threaded compute in a fixed workstation chassis, the Xeon is the stronger part, but the i7 offers comparable per-core performance in a far more power-efficient mobile package.

The Verdict

The data dictates a split decision based on platform constraints. The Intel Xeon E5-2623 v3 is the pick for anyone building or upgrading a Socket 2011-3 workstation where quad-channel DDR4 memory and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes are available. It wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with its largest advantage being 10.1% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (568 vs 516) and its smallest being 9.5% in Cinebench R20 single-core (333 vs 304). The i7-4810MQ, on the other hand, is the only choice for a mobile or compact system on Socket G3, where its 47W TDP and integrated Intel HD 4600 graphics make it feasible in a laptop chassis. The i7’s higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.50 GHz does not translate into a single-core win, as the Xeon still leads by 9.7% in R15 single-core (79 vs 72) and 9.8% in R23 single-core (795 vs 724). If you need ECC memory support, the Xeon is the sole option; the i7 lacks it entirely. If you need integrated graphics, the i7 is the sole option; the Xeon has none.

Architecture Differences

Both CPUs are built on Intel’s 22 nm process, but they diverge in nearly every other physical and platform characteristic. The Xeon E5-2623 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors, while the i7-4810MQ uses the standard Haswell architecture with a die size of 177 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. The Xeon’s larger die houses a shared 10 MB L3 cache, whereas the i7 makes do with 6 MB. Both have identical per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) caches. The memory subsystems are completely different: the Xeon supports DDR4 over a quad-channel bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7 supports DDR3 over a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support, a feature absent on the i7. PCIe lane counts differ dramatically: the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the i7 provides just 16. The Xeon’s TDP is 105W, more than double the i7’s 47W, reflecting its server-oriented power envelope. The i7 includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. Both parts are end-of-life, with the i7 released earlier (January 2014) than the Xeon (September 2014).

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-2623 v3 sweeps the entire Cinebench suite, but the margins are consistent and telling. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 568 against the i7’s 516, a 10.1% lead. The single-core R15 result is 79 vs 72, a 9.7% advantage. Moving to R20, the Xeon posts 2367 multi-core versus 2154, a 9.9% win, and 333 single-core versus 304, a 9.5% win. The R23 results show the same pattern: 5637 vs 5129 multi-core (9.9%) and 795 vs 724 single-core (9.8%). The Xeon’s wins are remarkably uniform, all falling between 9.5% and 10.1%, which suggests the performance gap is driven by a consistent architectural or platform advantage rather than a single workload quirk. The i7-4810MQ has no wins in the head-to-head set (winsA: 6, winsB: 0). However, the i7 does have Geekbench results that the Xeon lacks: 3203 multi-core and 1106 single-core. Those scores contribute to the i7’s higher average benchmark score of 1651 versus the Xeon’s 1630. The Xeon’s nearest rival by average score is the Intel Core i7-8560U at 1631 (delta -0.1%), while the i7-4810MQ’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 5 3550H at 1653 (delta -0.1%). This places both chips in the same performance tier despite their different platforms.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2623 v3 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-4810MQ has a base clock of 2.80 GHz.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-2623 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-2623 v3 supports ECC memory, whereas the Intel Core i7-4810MQ does not.

Q: How much L3 cache does each CPU have?

A: The Xeon E5-2623 v3 has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-4810MQ has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The Xeon E5-2623 v3 has a TDP of 105W, while the i7-4810MQ has a TDP of 47W.

Q: Which chip has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E5-2623 v3 scores 795 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 9.8% higher than the i7-4810MQ’s 724.

Q: Does the i7-4810MQ have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the i7-4810MQ includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics; the Xeon E5-2623 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2623 v3 wins in every measured benchmark, but its victories are best contextualized by platform. It is the superior choice for memory-bandwidth-sensitive workloads, offering 59.7 GB/s of quad-channel DDR4 bandwidth versus the i7’s 25.6 GB/s of dual-channel DDR3. That 2.33x bandwidth advantage likely underpins its consistent ~10% Cinebench lead, even though both chips share the same core count and architecture. The Xeon also wins on PCIe expansion, with 40 lanes versus 16, making it the only option for multi-GPU or high-speed storage configurations. Its larger 10 MB L3 cache and 10.1% multi-core R15 lead (568 vs 516) indicate it holds up better under sustained threaded loads. The Xeon’s higher TDP (105W vs 47W) is a tradeoff, but in a workstation chassis that is rarely a constraint.

The i7-4810MQ wins in portability and power efficiency. Its 47W TDP is less than half the Xeon’s 105W, enabling it to fit in laptops. It also has integrated graphics, which eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks. The i7’s higher boost clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.50 GHz) does not secure any benchmark win, but its Geekbench scores (3203 multi-core, 1106 single-core) show it is competitive in the same performance class as the Xeon when averaged. The i7 also carries a lower launch MSRP of $378 versus the Xeon’s $444, though both are end-of-life parts. The i7’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 5 3550H, has an average score of 1653, just 0.1% higher, indicating the i7 sits at the top of its mobile performance tier. For anyone constrained to a laptop or a small-form-factor system on Socket G3, the i7 is the clear winner; for anyone with a Socket 2011-3 motherboard, the Xeon is the clear winner.