Intel Core i7-4870HQ vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4. Across all six recorded Cinebench tests, the Xeon finishes ahead of the Core i7-4870HQ. The margins are remarkably consistent, hovering in the 15.8% to 16.4% range. This uniformity suggests the performance gap is driven by fundamental architectural and frequency advantages rather than workload-specific quirks.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon E5-1620 v4 scores 627 against the i7-4870HQ’s 540, a 16.1% advantage. The single-core R15 result tells a similar story: 88 versus 76, a 15.8% lead for the Xeon. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core gap remains exactly 16.1% (2616 versus 2253), while the single-core delta widens slightly to 16.4% (369 versus 317). The most recent test generation, Cinebench R23, shows the same pattern: the Xeon leads 6230 to 5366 in multi-core and 879 to 757 in single-core, both at 16.1% deltas.

The data shows no scenario where the Core i7-4870HQ takes the lead. The wins column is 6 for the Xeon, 0 for the i7. This is a decisive result, but the margin is moderate rather than overwhelming. A 16% advantage is meaningful in sustained workloads, but it is not a generational leap. The i7-4870HQ remains competitive in absolute terms, just consistently behind.

For context, the Xeon E5-1620 v4 sits at the 42nd percentile among all CPUs in the database, with an average benchmark score of 1802. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-9100 (avg score 1806, delta -0.2%), the Intel Core i3-9320 (1808, -0.4%), and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 4650U (1810, -0.4%). The Xeon is essentially neck-and-neck with these parts, trailing by less than half a percent. The Core i7-4870HQ, meanwhile, sits at the 41st percentile with an average score of 1769. Its nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE (1766, +0.2%), the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 (1773, -0.2%), and the Intel Xeon E-2224 (1762, +0.4%). The two processors are separated by just 33 points in average score (1802 versus 1769), which aligns with the roughly 1.9% aggregate difference implied by the head-to-head deltas.

Architecture Differences

The two chips come from different Intel eras and serve different market segments. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 is a Broadwell-EP part built on Intel’s 14 nm process, while the Core i7-4870HQ is a Haswell part (codename Crystalwell) on the older 22 nm node. This process difference is significant: the Xeon packs 3,400 million transistors into a 246 mm² die, whereas the i7-4870HQ contains 1,400 million transistors on a slightly larger 264 mm² die. The newer node allows the Xeon to nearly triple the transistor count while occupying less silicon area.

Both processors feature 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon runs at a base clock of 3.50 GHz and boosts to 3.80 GHz, while the i7-4870HQ runs at 2.50 GHz base and 3.70 GHz boost. The Xeon’s 1.0 GHz base clock advantage is substantial, and its 0.1 GHz boost advantage is smaller but still present. The Xeon’s higher sustained clocks are a major contributor to its benchmark lead.

Cache configurations differ notably. The Xeon has 10 MB of shared L3 cache, while the i7-4870HQ has 6 MB. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core. The Xeon’s larger L3 pool benefits multi-threaded workloads and repeated data access patterns.

Memory support is a major differentiator. The Xeon supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and a theoretical bandwidth of 76.8 GB/s. The i7-4870HQ uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus, yielding 25.6 GB/s. That is a 3x bandwidth advantage for the Xeon in raw specification terms. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the i7 does not. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the i7 offers 16 Gen 3 lanes.

Integrated graphics is another split. The i7-4870HQ includes Intel HD 5200 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated GPU, requiring a discrete graphics card for display output. The Xeon’s socket is Intel Socket 2011-3, typical of workstation platforms, while the i7 uses Intel BGA 1364, a soldered mobile package. The Xeon is classified as a desktop part, the i7 as a mobile part. The Xeon’s TDP is 140 watts versus 47 watts for the i7, reflecting the Xeon’s higher clocks, memory bandwidth, and platform capabilities.

Release timing also differs. The Xeon was released on June 19, 2016, while the i7-4870HQ arrived on June 30, 2014. Both are end-of-life products. The Xeon launched with an MSRP of $294; no launch MSRP is recorded for the i7.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy scenarios. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 outperforms the Intel Core i7-4870HQ in every recorded benchmark, with margins between 15.8% and 16.4%. If the task is multi-core rendering, the Xeon’s 16.1% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core (6230 versus 5366) is the headline figure. If the task is lightly threaded work, the Xeon’s 16.4% single-core R20 advantage (369 versus 317) shows it also holds the edge there.

However, the i7-4870HQ is not without reason to exist. Its 47-watt TDP is less than one-third of the Xeon’s 140 watts. For a mobile or compact system where power and cooling are constrained, the i7 is the only viable choice between the two. The i7 also includes integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display setups. The Xeon requires a separate graphics adapter.

The Xeon’s quad-channel DDR4 memory support (76.8 GB/s) versus the i7’s dual-channel DDR3 (25.6 GB/s) makes the Xeon the stronger platform for memory-bandwidth-sensitive applications, such as large data sets or virtualization. ECC support further positions the Xeon for reliability-focused workloads.

Choosing between these two is really a platform decision. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 wins on raw CPU performance, memory bandwidth, PCIe lane count, and ECC. The i7-4870HQ wins on power efficiency, integrated graphics, and mobile form factor. For a desktop workstation with a discrete GPU, the Xeon is the data-backed choice. For a laptop or small-form-factor system, the i7 is the only one that fits.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4 scores 6230, while the Intel Core i7-4870HQ scores 5366, a 16.1% advantage for the Xeon.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 369 versus 317 for the i7-4870HQ, a 16.4% lead. Across all single-core tests, the delta ranges from 15.8% to 16.4%.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread counts?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon uses a Broadwell architecture on 14 nm, while the i7 uses Haswell on 22 nm.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v4 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-4870HQ does not support ECC.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon supports DDR4 with quad-channel memory and 76.8 GB/s bandwidth. The i7-4870HQ supports DDR3 with dual-channel memory and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Core i7-4870HQ have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 5200. The Xeon E5-1620 v4 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon E5-1620 v4:

• Multi-threaded rendering: Wins all Cinebench multi-core tests by 16.1%, including R23 (6230 versus 5366).
• Single-threaded tasks: Leads all single-core tests by 15.8% to 16.4%, with R20 showing the largest margin (369 versus 317).
• Memory-intensive workloads: Quad-channel DDR4 with 76.8 GB/s bandwidth versus dual-channel DDR3 at 25.6 GB/s.
• PCIe expansion: 40 Gen 3 lanes versus 16, allowing more add-in cards and NVMe devices.
• Reliability-focused systems: ECC memory support is present on the Xeon, absent on the i7.
• Longer-term platform: Released in 2016 versus 2014, with a newer 14 nm process and 3,400 million transistors versus 1,400 million.

Intel Core i7-4870HQ:

• Power-constrained systems: TDP of 47 watts versus 140 watts, making it suitable for notebooks and compact designs.
• Integrated graphics: Built-in Intel HD 5200 enables display output without a discrete GPU.
• Mobile form factor: Uses Intel BGA 1364, a soldered mobile socket, versus the Xeon’s desktop Socket 2011-3.
• Lower platform cost: No need for a dedicated graphics card, though pricing data is not recorded for this comparison.
• Closer average score: Its 1769 average benchmark score trails the Xeon’s 1802 by only 33 points, or about 1.9%, which is a smaller gap than the head-to-head deltas suggest due to different test sets.

The Xeon E5-1620 v4 is the performance winner in every measured category. The i7-4870HQ wins on efficiency and integration, but the benchmark data does not show any compute scenario where it overtakes the Xeon.