Intel Core i7-4860HQ vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4860HQ and Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 are both 22 nm Haswell parts with identical core and thread counts, yet they target opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The i7-4860HQ is a 47 W mobile processor designed for laptops, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is a 140 W server/workstation chip on a completely different platform. The benchmark data shows a consistent, if modest, performance advantage for the Xeon across every tested workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all six head-to-head comparisons in the FACT PACK, but the margins are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 595 against the i7’s 533, a 10.4% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a nearly identical gap: 84 versus 75, a 10.7% lead for the Xeon. This pattern holds through the newer Cinebench versions. In R20 multi-core, the Xeon posts 2482 versus 2224 (10.4% higher), and in R20 single-core it scores 350 versus 313 (10.6% higher). R23 results continue the trend: the Xeon’s 5910 multi-core score beats the i7’s 5297 by 10.4%, and its 834 single-core score tops the i7’s 747 by the same 10.4% margin.

The consistency of these deltas is telling. Since both chips share the same 3.60 GHz boost clock, the Xeon’s advantage likely stems from its higher 3.50 GHz base clock versus the i7’s 2.40 GHz, plus the larger cache and superior memory subsystem. The Xeon’s wins are not blowouts—they hover around 10% across the board—but they are absolute. The i7-4860HQ does not win a single benchmark in the comparison set.

Looking at the broader context, both CPUs sit at similar overall performance percentiles. The i7-4860HQ lands at the 41st percentile among all CPUs, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 sits at the 40th. Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 1720 for the i7 and 1709 for the Xeon. The i7’s nearest rival by average score is the AMD Athlon Gold PRO 3150GE at 1722 (a 0.1% difference), while the Xeon’s closest competitor is the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 at 1709 (a 0% delta). In direct comparison, the Xeon’s advantage is real but narrow—enough to matter for sustained workloads, not enough to represent a generational leap.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins every multi-core test. It leads by 10.4% in Cinebench R15 (595 vs 533), R20 (2482 vs 2224), and R23 (5910 vs 5297).

Q: Is the single-core performance gap different from the multi-core gap?

A: No, it is nearly identical. The Xeon leads by 10.7% in Cinebench R15 single-core (84 vs 75), 10.6% in R20 single-core (350 vs 313), and 10.4% in R23 single-core (834 vs 747).

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads. They also share the same 3.60 GHz boost clock, but the Xeon has a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus the i7’s 2.40 GHz.

Q: How do their overall benchmark averages compare?

A: The i7-4860HQ has an average benchmark score of 1720, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 scores 1709. The i7 sits at the 41st percentile of all CPUs, and the Xeon is at the 40th percentile.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports ECC memory. The i7-4860HQ does not.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth specifications for each?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a memory bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The i7-4860HQ supports dual-channel DDR3 with a memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 22 nm process node, but they come from different Haswell derivatives. The i7-4860HQ uses the Crystalwell codename and belongs to the Core i7 (Crystal Well) generation, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses the Haswell-EP codename from the Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) family. The die sizes and transistor counts diverge substantially: the Xeon packs 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, compared to the i7’s 1,400 million transistors on a 264 mm² die.

The cache hierarchies differ significantly. Both chips share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache jumps from 6 MB on the i7 to 10 MB on the Xeon. That extra 4 MB of L3 is a key architectural advantage for the Xeon in cache-sensitive workloads. The memory controllers are also fundamentally different. The i7-4860HQ uses a dual-channel DDR3 interface, while the Xeon supports quad-channel DDR4. This doubles the theoretical memory bus width and more than doubles the bandwidth: 68.3 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s.

The integrated graphics situation is a major divergence. The i7-4860HQ includes Intel HD 5200 graphics, making it a self-contained mobile solution. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a discrete GPU for any display output. The PCIe support also differs: the i7 provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Xeon offers 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon’s additional lanes and quad-channel memory clearly target workstation and server environments, while the i7’s integrated graphics and lower power envelope target mobile computing.

Specification Differences

The most obvious specification gap is thermal design power. The i7-4860HQ is rated at 47 W, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 consumes 140 W—nearly three times as much. This directly reflects their intended platforms: the i7 is a mobile part for Intel BGA 1364 sockets, while the Xeon uses the larger Intel Socket 2011-3.

Clock speeds differ at the base level. The i7-4860HQ runs at 2.40 GHz base and boosts to 3.60 GHz. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 starts at 3.50 GHz base and also boosts to 3.60 GHz. The boost clocks are identical, but the Xeon’s much higher base clock means it sustains higher performance without relying on turbo headroom.

Memory support is a clear differentiator. The i7-4860HQ supports DDR3 memory on a dual-channel bus, while the Xeon supports DDR4 on a quad-channel bus. Memory bandwidth figures reflect this: 25.6 GB/s for the i7 versus 68.3 GB/s for the Xeon. Only the Xeon supports ECC memory, making it suitable for error-sensitive workloads.

The cache sizes differ, with the Xeon’s 10 MB shared L3 cache dwarfing the i7’s 6 MB. The integrated graphics are exclusive to the i7-4860HQ. The PCIe lane counts also differ: 16 lanes on the i7 versus 40 lanes on the Xeon. Both processors have locked multipliers and are end-of-life products, but their part numbers (SR1BP for the i7, QGZYSR20P for the Xeon) and release dates differ, with the i7 launching earlier in 2014 and the Xeon following later that year.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, if narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3. It wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, with consistent 10.4% to 10.7% margins across both single-core and multi-core workloads. If pure processing performance is the only criterion, the Xeon is the better chip.

However, the benchmark averages tell a more nuanced story. The i7-4860HQ’s average score of 1720 actually edges out the Xeon’s 1709, and both sit at nearly identical percentiles (41st versus 40th). The Xeon’s wins in the direct comparison do not translate into a higher overall ranking, suggesting that the two chips are roughly comparable in real-world aggregate performance despite the Xeon’s consistent benchmark victories.

The choice between them should come down to platform requirements. The i7-4860HQ is the only option for mobile systems, with its 47 W TDP, integrated Intel HD 5200 graphics, and BGA 1364 socket. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 demands a desktop workstation motherboard with Socket 2011-3, requires a discrete GPU, and consumes 140 W. The Xeon’s advantages—quad-channel DDR4 memory, 68.3 GB/s bandwidth, ECC support, 40 PCIe lanes, and a larger 10 MB L3 cache—are meaningful for server and workstation tasks. The i7-4860HQ’s advantages are its lower power draw and integrated graphics.

For a workstation user who needs ECC memory, high memory bandwidth, and many PCIe lanes, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is the obvious choice despite its higher power consumption. For a mobile user or anyone needing a self-contained processor with graphics, the i7-4860HQ is the only viable pick. The benchmark data shows the Xeon is faster, but the i7 is not far behind—and in average scores across all CPUs, it is marginally ahead. The verdict is situational: the Xeon wins on raw performance and platform capability, while the i7 wins on efficiency and integration.