Intel Core i7-4870HQ vs Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 and the Intel Core i7-4870HQ are both 22 nm Haswell parts, but they target completely different corners of the market. The Xeon is a 10-core server processor for Socket 2011-3, while the i7 is a 4-core mobile chip with integrated graphics for BGA 1364. Benchmark data shows the Xeon winning every single head-to-head test, yet the two processors land at nearly identical average scores, with the Xeon at 1777 and the i7 at 1769. This odd combination of results stems from the fact that the head-to-head tests only cover Cinebench, while the average scores include Geekbench results for the i7, which are not present in the Xeon’s benchmark set.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the provided benchmark results, the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 wins outright in every category measured. Across six Cinebench tests—R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core variants—the Xeon takes the top spot with a consistent margin of roughly 14.5% to 14.8% over the Core i7-4870HQ. The largest single win for the Xeon is in Cinebench R20 single-core, where it scores 364 against the i7’s 317, a 14.8% advantage. In multi-core workloads, the Xeon’s lead is equally decisive: it scores 619 versus 540 in R15 multi-core, and 6144 versus 5366 in R23 multi-core, both representing a 14.5% edge.

The Core i7-4870HQ, however, has no wins to its name in this comparison. The only benchmark where the i7 has data that the Xeon lacks is Geekbench—the i7 scores 3701 in multi-core and 1143 in single-core—but since no Geekbench score exists for the Xeon, no direct comparison can be made. The data shows a clear split: the Xeon is the performance leader in every measurable head-to-head test, while the i7’s only unique advantage is the presence of integrated graphics (Intel HD 5200), which the Xeon does not offer.

The practical implication is that the Xeon E5-4610 v3 is the superior choice for any workload that relies on Cinebench-style rendering, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. The i7-4870HQ, despite having a higher base clock of 2.50 GHz versus the Xeon’s 1.70 GHz, still falls behind in every single-core test, suggesting that the Xeon’s architecture and cache configuration provide a significant per-clock advantage. For users who need a processor with built-in graphics, the i7 is the only option here, but for raw CPU compute, the Xeon dominates.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Intel Core i7-4870HQ has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 6144 compared to the i7’s 5366, a 14.5% advantage. The same margin applies to R15 multi-core (619 vs 540) and R20 multi-core (2580 vs 2253).

Q: Does the Core i7-4870HQ have any benchmark wins over the Xeon?

A: No. In the six head-to-head benchmarks provided, the Xeon wins all six. The i7 has no wins, though it does have Geekbench scores (3701 multi-core, 1143 single-core) that the Xeon lacks entirely.

Q: What are the memory and expansion differences?

A: The Xeon supports DDR4 memory on a quad-channel bus with 51.2 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory, plus PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes. The i7 supports DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, no ECC, and PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core i7-4870HQ includes Intel HD 5200 integrated graphics, while the Xeon E5-4610 v3 has no integrated graphics listed.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 1777, and the i7 has an average of 1769. The Xeon’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300, scores 1778 with a -0.1% delta, showing these two processors sit at nearly the same overall performance tier.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 619 against the i7’s 540, a 14.6% delta. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap: 87 for the Xeon versus 76 for the i7, a 14.5% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon extends its lead slightly in single-core, scoring 364 versus 317, which is the largest margin at 14.8%. The R20 multi-core test shows 2580 against 2253, a 14.5% delta.

In Cinebench R23, the pattern holds exactly: multi-core scores are 6144 for the Xeon and 5366 for the i7, a 14.5% delta, and single-core scores are 867 versus 757, also 14.5%. Across all six comparisons, the Xeon’s advantage never dips below 14.5% and never exceeds 14.8%. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural edge rather than a workload-specific quirk. The i7’s higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz—the Xeon has no listed boost clock—does not translate into a win in any test, indicating that the Xeon’s larger L3 cache (25 MB shared versus 6 MB shared) and higher core count compensate fully for its lower base frequency.

For context, the Xeon’s average benchmark score of 1777 puts it right next to the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 (1778, -0.1%) and the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 (1773, 0.2%). The i7’s average of 1769 places it near the AMD Ryzen 5 2400GE (1766, 0.2%) and the Intel Xeon E-2224 (1762, 0.4%). Both processors sit in the 41st percentile of all CPUs, reinforcing that they are mid-pack performers overall, despite the Xeon’s clean sweep in this direct comparison.

Specification Differences

The most obvious difference is core count: the Xeon has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the i7 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks differ as well, with the i7 at 2.50 GHz and the Xeon at 1.70 GHz; the i7 also has a 3.70 GHz boost clock, while the Xeon has no boost clock listed. Thermal design power (TDP) is a major differentiator: the Xeon draws 105 watts, while the i7 is rated at just 47 watts, reflecting the mobile versus server positioning.

Memory support is another clear split. The Xeon uses DDR4 with a quad-channel bus and 51.2 GB/s bandwidth, plus ECC memory support. The i7 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and 25.6 GB/s bandwidth, with no ECC support. PCIe lanes also differ: the Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes, while the i7 provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The Xeon’s socket is Intel Socket 2011-3, whereas the i7 uses Intel BGA 1364, meaning the Xeon is a socketed server part and the i7 is soldered to the board.

Cache sizes diverge significantly. Both have 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 25 MB on the Xeon versus 6 MB on the i7. The i7 includes Intel HD 5200 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $1219, while the i7 has no launch MSRP listed. The Xeon’s die size is 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors, compared to the i7’s 264 mm² and 1,400 million transistors. Both are end-of-life parts, with the Xeon released on 2015-05-31 and the i7 on 2014-06-30.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 22 nm process, but they belong to different Haswell derivatives. The Xeon E5-4610 v3 uses the Haswell-EP architecture (codename Haswell-EP) with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The Core i7-4870HQ uses the Crystalwell architecture (codename Crystal Well) with 1,400 million transistors on a 264 mm² die. The Crystalwell design is known for its integrated graphics capability, which is present here as Intel HD 5200, whereas the Haswell-EP design omits graphics entirely.

The Xeon’s architecture is oriented toward multi-threaded server workloads, as evidenced by its 10 cores, 20 threads, and 25 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7’s architecture is a mobile part with a 4-core, 8-thread configuration and a much smaller 6 MB L3 cache. The process node is identical at 22 nm, but the scale of the silicon differs substantially: the Xeon packs nearly double the transistors into a die that is 92 mm² larger. This reflects the Xeon’s additional cores and larger cache, which come at the cost of higher power consumption (105 W versus 47 W) and a larger physical footprint.

Memory architecture also differs fundamentally. The Xeon’s quad-channel DDR4 controller with ECC support is designed for reliability and bandwidth in server environments, offering 51.2 GB/s. The i7’s dual-channel DDR3 controller, at 25.6 GB/s, is half the bandwidth and lacks ECC, reflecting its consumer mobile focus. The PCIe configuration follows suit: 40 lanes on the Xeon versus 16 on the i7, giving the server part more headroom for expansion. Both are end-of-life, but the Xeon’s server pedigree shows in every architectural choice, from the larger cache to the memory and I/O capabilities.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-4610 v3 wins every benchmark where both processors have scores. In multi-core Cinebench R23, it is 14.5% ahead of the Core i7-4870HQ, and in single-core R20, it is 14.8% ahead. The Xeon’s 10-core, 20-thread configuration with 25 MB of L3 cache overwhelms the i7’s 4-core, 8-thread design with 6 MB of cache, even though the i7 has a higher base clock and a boost clock that the Xeon lacks. The Xeon also offers quad-channel DDR4 with ECC, 40 PCIe lanes, and a 51.2 GB/s memory bandwidth, all of which are absent on the i7.

Who should pick the Xeon? Anyone building a server or workstation on Socket 2011-3 who needs maximum multi-threaded rendering performance, ECC memory, and high memory bandwidth. The Xeon’s 41st percentile average score (1777) places it just behind the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 1300 (1778, -0.1%), so it is competitive with mainstream quad-core parts despite its server heritage. The 105 W TDP is a consideration, but the performance lead over the i7 is consistent across all six Cinebench tests.

Who should pick the i7-4870HQ? Users who require a mobile form factor—it is a BGA 1364 part—and integrated graphics. The i7’s 47 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its Intel HD 5200 graphics mean no separate GPU is needed for basic display output. Its average benchmark score of 1769 is only 0.4% behind the Xeon’s 1777, and it sits just 0.2% behind the Intel Xeon E5-2637 v3 (1773). However, in a direct head-to-head with the Xeon, the i7 loses every single test, so there is no scenario where the i7 is the faster processor. It is the right choice only for its mobility, power envelope, and integrated graphics—not for raw compute performance.