Intel Core i7-4940MX vs Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-4940MX and Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 are both 4-core, 8-thread processors, yet they occupy different corners of the Intel lineup: one is a mobile Extreme Edition part, the other a low-power server/workstation chip. Benchmark data shows the Xeon E3-1270L v4 leading in every single head-to-head test, with margins ranging from 11.4% to 12% across both multi-core and single-core workloads. However, the two chips are nearly inseparable in overall average benchmark scores—1886 for the Core i7 versus 1883 for the Xeon—which puts them both at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. This apparent contradiction is resolved by examining the architectural and market differences: the Core i7-4940MX is a 22 nm Haswell part designed for high-end laptops, while the Xeon E3-1270L v4 is a 14 nm Broadwell-DT chip for socket 1150 systems with ECC memory support. The data suggests the Xeon is the faster part in raw compute, but the Core i7 offers mobility and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-4940MX has a marginally higher average benchmark score of 1886, compared to the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4's 1883. The difference is just 0.2%, placing both in the same performance tier.

Q: How much faster is the Xeon E3-1270L v4 in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E3-1270L v4 scores 6512 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core i7-4940MX scores 5759. The Xeon leads by 11.6% in this test, which is the same margin seen in Cinebench R15 and R20 multi-core tests.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-4940MX does not. This makes the Xeon a better fit for server or workstation environments where data integrity is critical.

Q: What are the socket and market segment differences?

A: The Core i7-4940MX uses Intel Socket G3 and targets the Mobile segment, while the Xeon E3-1270L v4 uses Intel Socket 1150 and targets the Server/Workstation segment. The Core i7 also has an unlocked multiplier, which the Xeon lacks.

Q: Which chip has a higher boost clock and what is the impact?

A: The Core i7-4940MX has a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, compared to the Xeon's 3.60 GHz. Despite this clock advantage, the Xeon wins all single-core benchmarks, suggesting the newer Broadwell architecture is more efficient per clock.

Q: What is the TDP difference and does it affect performance?

A: The Core i7-4940MX has a TDP of 57 W, while the Xeon E3-1270L v4 has a TDP of 45 W. The Xeon delivers higher benchmark scores despite the lower power envelope, indicating superior energy efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 in all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons. The Xeon wins every Cinebench test—R15, R20, and R23—in both single-core and multi-core modes. The smallest margin is 11.4% in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon scores 385 against the Core i7's 341. The largest margin is 12% in Cinebench R15 single-core, with the Xeon hitting 92 compared to the Core i7's 81. In multi-core tests, the Xeon consistently leads by 11.6% across R15, R20, and R23.

The Intel Core i7-4940MX, however, has its own advantages that are not reflected in these compute benchmarks. It is the only one of the two with an unlocked multiplier, making it suitable for overclocking on supporting mobile platforms. It also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), whereas the Xeon E3-1270L v4 has no integrated graphics at all. For a mobile workstation or high-end laptop, the Core i7's integrated GPU and lower platform power requirements (Intel Socket G3) might be more practical, even if raw CPU performance is lower.

The Xeon E3-1270L v4's wins are decisive in pure processing power. Its 45 W TDP, combined with higher scores, makes it the clear choice for a compact server or workstation where every watt counts. The Core i7-4940MX, with its 57 W TDP, is less efficient but offers the flexibility of overclocking and a self-contained graphics solution.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing nodes. The Core i7-4940MX is built on the 22 nm Haswell architecture, using 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The Xeon E3-1270L v4 uses the 14 nm Broadwell-DT architecture with a slightly larger die at 182 mm², though its transistor count is not listed. This node shrink is a fundamental difference: the 14 nm process allows the Xeon to achieve higher performance while consuming less power.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache differs: the Core i7 has 8 MB shared, while the Xeon has 6 MB shared. Despite having 2 MB less L3 cache, the Xeon still outperforms the Core i7 in every benchmark, pointing to architectural efficiency gains in Broadwell.

Memory bandwidth is another differentiator. The Core i7-4940MX offers 25.6 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the Xeon E3-1270L v4 provides 29.9 GB/s. Both support DDR3 memory over a dual-channel bus, but the Xeon's higher bandwidth likely contributes to its multi-core advantage. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core i7, which is a significant architectural difference for reliability-focused workloads.

The integrated graphics situation is binary: the Core i7 includes Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. This means the Core i7 can drive a display without a discrete GPU, whereas the Xeon requires a separate graphics card. PCIe support is identical—Gen 3 with 16 lanes—so expansion capabilities are equal.

Specification Differences

The specifications reveal a clear split between mobile and server design goals. The Core i7-4940MX has a base clock of 3.10 GHz and a boost clock of 4.00 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1270L v4 operates at 3.00 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. The Core i7's clocks are higher, but the Xeon's lower clocks do not prevent it from winning benchmarks.

Thermal design power is a key difference: the Core i7 is rated at 57 W, the Xeon at 45 W. This 12 W gap is substantial for small-form-factor systems. The Core i7 uses Intel Socket G3, a mobile socket, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1150, a desktop/server socket. The Core i7 is marked as end-of-life, while the Xeon has no production status listed.

The Core i7-4940MX has a launch MSRP of $1096 and an unlocked multiplier, making it a premium overclockable mobile part. The Xeon E3-1270L v4 has no launch MSRP listed and its multiplier is locked. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon, as is the Server/Workstation market segment. The Core i7 is in the Mobile segment. Release dates differ by about 16 months: the Core i7 was released in January 2014, the Xeon in June 2015.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 wins all six comparisons. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 656 against the Core i7's 580, a delta of -11.6%. The single-core R15 test shows the Xeon at 92 versus 81, a 12% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 2735 for the Xeon and 2418 for the Core i7, again an 11.6% gap. Single-core R20 gives the Xeon 385 against 341, an 11.4% advantage.

Cinebench R23 multi-core continues the trend: the Xeon scores 6512, the Core i7 scores 5759, maintaining the exact 11.6% delta. The single-core R23 test has the Xeon at 919 and the Core i7 at 813, an 11.5% lead. These consistent margins across all tests suggest the Xeon's architectural improvements provide a uniform performance uplift, regardless of workload type.

It is notably the Core i7-4940MX has additional Geekbench scores not shared with the Xeon: a multi-core score of 3869 and a single-core score of 1227. The Xeon does not have Geekbench data in this pack, so a direct comparison in that test is impossible. However, the Cinebench results are consistent enough to establish the Xeon as the faster processor in rendering-style workloads.

The average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story: the Core i7's 1886 average is 0.2% higher than the Xeon's 1883. This is because the Core i7's average includes Geekbench scores, which are not available for the Xeon. The nearest rival data confirms they are in the same performance class: the Xeon D-1531 (1885) sits between them, and the Intel Processor U300 (1881) is close to both.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the Intel Xeon E3-1270L v4 is faster in every benchmark where both processors were tested. A 11.4% to 12% lead across six Cinebench tests is not marginal—it represents a consistent architectural advantage from the newer 14 nm Broadwell design. The Xeon achieves this with a lower 45 W TDP and supports ECC memory, making it the superior choice for server or workstation builds where processing power per watt and data reliability are priorities.

The Intel Core i7-4940MX is not without merit, but its strengths lie outside raw compute benchmarks. It is the only one with an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking on mobile platforms. It includes Intel HD 4600 integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely. For a high-end laptop or a compact mobile workstation, the Core i7's combination of overclocking and integrated GPU might outweigh its 11.6% multi-core deficit.

For a desktop or server application, the Xeon E3-1270L v4 is the obvious pick. It wins every benchmark, consumes less power, and offers ECC memory support. The Core i7-4940MX should be chosen by users who need a mobile processor with overclocking headroom and integrated graphics, accepting lower multi-core performance in exchange. The 0.2% difference in average benchmark scores is negligible; the 11.6% delta in Cinebench multi-core is decisive for compute-heavy tasks.