CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5620 and Intel Core i7-5650U sit at nearly identical average benchmark scores, 1029 versus 1027, yet they are fundamentally different processors built for opposite ends of the computing spectrum. The Xeon E5620, a server/workstation part from 2010, wins every single head-to-head benchmark in this comparison, but the i7-5650U, a 2015 mobile chip, matches that overall performance while consuming a fraction of the power. The data shows a clear split: the Xeon takes multi-threaded and single-threaded workloads alike in Cinebench, but the i7-5650U brings integrated graphics, a much newer architecture, and a dramatically lower thermal envelope to the table. Neither chip dominates the other outright; the right choice depends entirely on whether the priority is raw compute density or mobility and efficiency.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5620 wins in every benchmark category recorded in this comparison. Across five Cinebench tests, R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, R23 multicore, and R23 singlecore, the Xeon posts higher scores in each instance. Its largest margin comes in Cinebench R20 singlecore, where it scores 177 against the i7-5650U's 150, a lead of 18%. The smallest margin is still substantial: every other test shows the Xeon ahead by 17.6% or 17.9%. This is a consistent, across-the-board victory in raw processing power.

The Intel Core i7-5650U's wins are not measured in benchmark scores but in platform attributes. It integrates Intel HD 6000 graphics, which the Xeon E5620 lacks entirely. It also supports a memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, a figure the Xeon's fact pack does not even list. The i7-5650U's 15W TDP versus the Xeon's 80W TDP means it can operate in fanless or ultra-thin designs where the Xeon would require substantial cooling. The i7-5650U also carries a launch MSRP of $426, but the Xeon's price is not listed, so no direct cost comparison is possible from the data.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips spans five years of Intel development. The Xeon E5620 uses the Westmere-EP architecture on a 32 nm process node, while the i7-5650U uses Broadwell-U on a 14 nm node. That process shrink from 32 nm to 14 nm is a major factor in the i7-5650U's efficiency advantage. Transistor counts tell the story: the Xeon packs 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die, while the i7-5650U fits 1,900 million transistors on a 133 mm² die, nearly double the transistors in roughly half the area.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The Xeon E5620 offers 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i7-5650U offers 2 cores and 4 threads. This gives the Xeon a natural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, which the benchmark data confirms. Cache configurations also diverge: both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the Xeon's L3 cache is 12 MB shared, versus the i7-5650U's 4 MB shared. The Xeon's three times larger L3 cache likely contributes to its consistent lead in Cinebench tests.

Memory support shows another split. Both support DDR3, but the Xeon uses a triple-channel memory bus while the i7-5650U uses dual-channel. The i7-5650U lists a specific memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s; the Xeon's bandwidth is not provided in the data. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon, which is a server-class feature. The i7-5650U does not support ECC. PCIe connectivity is Gen 2 for both, but the i7-5650U specifies 12 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon's lane count is not listed.

The i7-5650U includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 6000), while the Xeon has none. This makes the i7-5650U a complete system-on-chip solution for compact laptops, whereas the Xeon requires a discrete GPU. The Xeon uses the larger Intel Socket 1366, while the i7-5650U uses the compact Intel BGA 1168 soldered design. Both processors have locked multipliers, so neither supports overclocking.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5620's victory is uniform across all five comparable benchmarks. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 301 against the i7-5650U's 256, a 17.6% advantage. Cinebench R20 multicore repeats the pattern: 1255 for the Xeon versus 1067 for the i7-5650U, again 17.6% ahead. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 2989 versus 2542, also a 17.6% gap. The consistency of that exact 17.6% delta across three different multicore tests suggests the performance ratio is stable regardless of the workload intensity.

Single-core results show a marginally larger gap. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the Xeon scores 177 versus 150, an 18% lead. Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 422 versus 358, a 17.9% advantage. This is notable because the i7-5650U has a significantly higher boost clock, 3.20 GHz versus the Xeon's 2.67 GHz, yet it still trails in single-threaded performance. The Xeon's older but higher-power design clearly delivers more instructions per clock in these tests, despite the i7-5650U's frequency advantage.

The i7-5650U does have additional benchmark data that the Xeon lacks: Geekbench multicore at 1854 and singlecore at 960. These scores cannot be compared directly to the Xeon because the Xeon has no Geekbench results in the benchmark database. The i7-5650U's average benchmark score of 1027 places it in the 28th percentile of all CPUs, exactly matching the Xeon's 28th percentile. The two chips are within 0.2% of each other in average score, making them statistical equals in overall performance despite the Xeon's wins in every direct comparison.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 wins all three multicore Cinebench tests in the comparison. It scores 301 in R15, 1255 in R20, and 2989 in R23, versus the i7-5650U's 256, 1067, and 2542 respectively. Each margin is exactly 17.6%.

Q: Does the i7-5650U beat the Xeon in any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon winning all five comparable tests, with winsA at 5 and winsB at 0. The i7-5650U's Geekbench scores (1854 multicore, 960 singlecore) have no Xeon equivalent to compare against.

Q: Why does the i7-5650U have a higher boost clock but lose in single-core tests?

A: The i7-5650U boosts to 3.20 GHz versus the Xeon's 2.67 GHz, yet the Xeon wins Cinebench R20 singlecore by 18% (177 versus 150) and R23 singlecore by 17.9% (422 versus 358). The data indicates the Xeon's architecture delivers more performance per clock in these tests.

Q: Can the i7-5650U replace the Xeon in a server environment?

A: The Xeon supports ECC memory and uses a triple-channel memory bus, both server-grade features. The i7-5650U lacks ECC support and uses dual-channel memory. The Xeon's market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, while the i7-5650U is a Mobile part.

Q: Which chip has better integrated graphics?

A: Only the i7-5650U has integrated graphics, listed as Intel HD 6000. The Xeon E5620 has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a separate GPU for display output.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5620 has an average benchmark score of 1029, while the i7-5650U scores 1027. They are within 0.2% of each other, and both sit at the 28th percentile of all CPUs.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear verdict for different use cases. The Intel Xeon E5620 is the superior choice for raw compute performance. It wins every direct benchmark comparison, offers 4 cores and 8 threads versus the i7-5650U's 2 cores and 4 threads, provides 12 MB of shared L3 cache versus 4 MB, supports ECC memory, and uses a triple-channel memory bus. Its 80W TDP is a non-issue in a server or workstation chassis where cooling is abundant. For any workload that can use multiple cores, rendering, virtualization, database work, the Xeon's consistent 17.6% to 18% lead in Cinebench makes it the obvious pick.

The Intel Core i7-5650U wins on platform efficiency and integration. Its 15W TDP is less than one-fifth of the Xeon's 80W, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops. The integrated Intel HD 6000 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. Its 14 nm process node versus the Xeon's 32 nm means it runs cooler and draws less power. The i7-5650U also delivers 29.9 GB/s of memory bandwidth, a figure not provided for the Xeon. For a mobile user who needs adequate performance without a power brick attached to a server rack, the i7-5650U is the sensible choice.

The fact that both chips land at the 28th percentile of all CPUs and have nearly identical average scores (1029 versus 1027) underscores that this is not a question of one being "better" overall. It is a question of form factor and workload. The Xeon is a locked, server-class workhorse that will grind through multi-threaded tasks. The i7-5650U is a locked, ultra-low-power mobile chip that matches the Xeon's average output while enabling portable designs. Choose the Xeon for compute density; choose the i7-5650U for efficiency and integration.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5620 | Intel Core i7-5650U |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 2.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.67 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 80W | 15W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel BGA 1168 |

| Architecture | Westmere | Broadwell |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | 1,900 million |

| Die Size | 239 mm² | 133 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 4 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 29.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 2, 12 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 6000 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $426 |

| Part Number | SLBV4 | SR267 |