Intel Core i7-4910MQ vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4910MQ and the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 are both Haswell-generation four-core processors, but they target entirely different segments: one is a mobile part for laptops, the other a server/workstation chip for desktop platforms. The benchmark data reveals a clear performance hierarchy between them, with the Xeon winning every single head-to-head test, yet the two chips land within 0.5% of each other in average benchmark score. The i7-4910MQ averages 1716 across its tested workloads, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 averages 1709, placing them at the 41st and 40th percentiles of all CPUs respectively. This apparent contradiction—consistent losses yet nearly identical averages—stems from the fact that the i7-4910MQ has Geekbench scores in its dataset, while the Xeon does not, skewing the aggregate comparison.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are remarkably consistent and narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 595 against the i7-4910MQ's 536, a 9.9% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a slightly larger gap: 84 versus 75, a 10.7% lead for the Xeon. Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds—the Xeon posts 2482 multicore and 350 single-core, versus 2236 and 315 for the i7-4910MQ, with deltas of 9.9% and 10% respectively. The newest Cinebench R23 test continues the trend: the Xeon achieves 5910 multicore and 834 single-core, while the i7-4910MQ manages 5326 and 752, yielding 9.9% and 9.8% gaps.

These consistent margins across every generation of Cinebench suggest a structural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. The Xeon's lead hovers around 10% in all threaded and single-threaded scenarios, indicating that its higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz provides a steady per-core advantage. Notably, the i7-4910MQ has a higher boost clock at 3.90 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.60 GHz, yet it still loses every single-core test. This implies the Xeon sustains its frequency more effectively under load, or that the i7-4910MQ's mobile power envelope limits sustained boost behavior. The Geekbench results, which only exist for the i7-4910MQ, show 3368 multicore and 1116 single-core scores, but without a corresponding Xeon result, they cannot be directly compared here.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-4910MQ has a higher average benchmark score of 1716, compared to 1709 for the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3. This 0.4% difference is minimal, but it pushes the i7-4910MQ to the 41st percentile versus the Xeon's 40th percentile.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1620 v3 win every head-to-head benchmark?

A: Yes. The Xeon wins all six head-to-head comparisons, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both multicore and single-core tests. The margin ranges from 9.8% to 10.7% in the Xeon's favor.

Q: How do the two processors compare in terms of memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has a substantial advantage, offering 68.3 GB/s of memory bandwidth through its quad-channel DDR4 memory bus. The i7-4910MQ provides 25.6 GB/s via dual-channel DDR3, which is less than half the Xeon's bandwidth.

Q: Which processor includes integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i7-4910MQ includes integrated graphics, featuring the Intel HD 4600. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has no integrated graphics, meaning it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Q: What are the transistor counts for each processor?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 contains 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, while the i7-4910MQ has 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. Both are fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process.

Q: Can either processor be overclocked via unlocked multiplier?

A: No. Both the i7-4910MQ and the Xeon E5-1620 v3 have locked multipliers, as indicated by the multiplierUnlocked field being false for both.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Haswell microarchitecture, but they diverge significantly in their implementation. The i7-4910MQ uses the Haswell design with the codename "Haswell" and belongs to the Core i7 (Haswell) generation. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses Haswell-EP, a server-oriented variant, and belongs to the Xeon E5 (Haswell-EP) generation. Both are built on Intel's 22 nm process node and fabricated by Intel, but the similarities end there.

The most striking architectural difference is in the physical silicon. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 packs 2,600 million transistors onto a 356 mm² die, while the i7-4910MQ contains just 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. That is nearly double the transistor count and die area for the Xeon, reflecting its server-grade design with additional uncore components, memory controllers, and PCIe lanes. The Xeon also has a larger L3 cache at 10 MB shared, versus 8 MB shared for the i7-4910MQ. Both have identical L1 and L2 cache configurations at 64 KB per core and 256 KB per core respectively.

Memory architecture differs substantially. The i7-4910MQ supports DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus, delivering 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports DDR4 over a quad-channel bus, delivering 68.3 GB/s—a 2.7x increase in theoretical bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the i7-4910MQ does not. PCIe connectivity is another major split: the Xeon provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the i7-4910MQ provides only 16 lanes. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, whereas the i7-4910MQ uses the mobile Intel Socket G3.

The integrated graphics situation is binary: the i7-4910MQ includes Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon has none. This reflects their intended markets—the mobile chip needs to drive a laptop display, while the server/workstation chip assumes a discrete GPU. The Xeon's TDP of 140 W is nearly triple the i7-4910MQ's 47 W, a direct consequence of its larger die, higher clocks, and additional memory and PCIe controllers.

The Verdict

The data points to the Xeon E5-1620 v3 as the stronger processor in raw computing performance, winning every head-to-head benchmark by approximately 10%. Its advantages in memory bandwidth (68.3 GB/s versus 25.6 GB/s), L3 cache (10 MB versus 8 MB), and PCIe lanes (40 versus 16) make it the more capable platform for memory-intensive and I/O-heavy workloads. The Xeon's support for ECC memory and DDR4 further solidify its position for reliability-focused server or workstation builds.

However, the i7-4910MQ is not without merit. Despite losing every benchmark, its average score of 1716 edges out the Xeon's 1709, and it matches the Xeon's core and thread count at 4 cores and 8 threads. The i7-4910MQ's 47 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, though the data does not include direct power consumption measurements. Its integrated HD 4600 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, which could be decisive for compact mobile systems. The i7-4910MQ also holds a higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.60 GHz, though this does not translate into benchmark wins.

The choice between these two depends on the use case. For mobile computing or power-constrained environments, the i7-4910MQ is the logical pick. For server or workstation duties where memory bandwidth, ECC support, and PCIe expansion matter more than power efficiency, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is the clear winner. The Xeon's 10% performance lead across all Cinebench tests, combined with its superior memory subsystem, makes it the better processor for sustained, demanding workloads.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every physical and platform specification. The i7-4910MQ has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 has a higher base clock of 3.50 GHz but a lower boost clock of 3.60 GHz. TDP is dramatically different: 47 W for the i7-4910MQ versus 140 W for the Xeon. The i7-4910MQ uses Intel Socket G3, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3.

Memory support splits along generation lines: the i7-4910MQ uses DDR3 on a dual-channel bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth and no ECC support, while the Xeon uses DDR4 on a quad-channel bus with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC support. PCIe lanes are 16 for the i7-4910MQ and 40 for the Xeon, both Gen 3. Integrated graphics exist only on the i7-4910MQ as Intel HD 4600. The Xeon has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die, versus 1,400 million on 177 mm² for the i7-4910MQ. L3 cache is 10 MB for the Xeon and 8 MB for the i7-4910MQ. The market segments differ: Mobile for the i7-4910MQ, Server/Workstation for the Xeon. Both are end-of-life, but the i7-4910MQ was released on 2014-01-19 with a launch MSRP of $570, while the Xeon was released on 2014-09-07 and has no launch MSRP listed.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins every computing benchmark in the dataset, making it the default choice for pure CPU performance. Its 10% lead in all Cinebench tests—multicore and single-core alike—means it will outperform the i7-4910MQ in any CPU-bound task, from rendering to simulation to general productivity. The Xeon's quad-channel DDR4 memory interface with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth is a major advantage for workloads that are memory-bandwidth sensitive, such as large data processing or virtualization. Its 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes enable more expansion cards, GPUs, or NVMe storage devices. ECC memory support is crucial for error-sensitive server applications where data corruption is unacceptable.

The i7-4910MQ's wins are more qualitative. Its 47 W TDP indicates it can operate in laptops and compact systems where the Xeon's 140 W would be impractical without serious cooling. The integrated HD 4600 graphics mean the i7-4910MQ can run a display without a discrete GPU, reducing system cost and complexity for basic tasks. Its higher boost clock of 3.90 GHz could provide better burst performance in short, lightly threaded tasks, though the benchmark data does not show this materializing. The i7-4910MQ's smaller die and lower transistor count also suggest lower production costs, though pricing data is incomplete for the Xeon. For mobile users or anyone building a compact, power-efficient system, the i7-4910MQ is the appropriate choice. For anyone needing maximum throughput, memory bandwidth, or ECC reliability, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is the data-backed winner.