Intel Core i7-6700 vs Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y Comparison

The Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y and Intel Core i7-6700 are separated by nearly six years of architecture and a full market-segment divide, and the benchmark data reflects that gulf in every test. The Xeon Gold 6336Y wins all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 466.6% to 472.9% in Cinebench workloads. The Core i7-6700, a 2015-era desktop part, cannot match the server-class Xeon in any measured metric, making this a comparison of raw capacity versus legacy efficiency. The data shows the Xeon Gold 6336Y is not merely faster; it is in a different performance class entirely, with the Core i7-6700 trailing by a factor of roughly 5.7x in every Cinebench test.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon Gold 6336Y dominates the Core i7-6700 across all six Cinebench tests, with the smallest single-core margin still exceeding 466%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 3899 against the i7-6700’s 688, a 466.7% advantage. The single-core R15 results are similarly lopsided: 550 versus 96, a 472.9% lead for the Xeon. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon’s multi-core score of 16249 crushes the i7-6700’s 2867 (466.8% delta), while single-core R20 shows 2294 against 404 (467.8% delta). The pattern holds in Cinebench R23, where the Xeon’s 38689 multi-core result dwarfs the i7-6700’s 6828 (466.6% delta), and the single-core score of 5462 versus 964 represents a 466.6% gap.

The magnitude of these deltas is striking: every single test produces a near-identical percentage difference, which points to a fundamental throughput advantage rather than workload-specific tuning. The Xeon’s 24 cores and 48 threads versus the i7-6700’s 4 cores and 8 threads explain the multi-core dominance, but the single-core lead is equally decisive. The Xeon’s 2.40 GHz base clock is lower than the i7-6700’s 3.40 GHz, yet the newer Ice Lake architecture and 10 nm process deliver a 466%+ single-core improvement in Cinebench R15. This suggests that IPC gains and memory bandwidth—the Xeon’s 204.8 GB/s versus the i7-6700’s 34.1 GB/s—play a larger role than raw clock speed in these benchmarks.

There are no tests where the Core i7-6700 wins. The head-to-head record is 6-0 in favor of the Xeon Gold 6336Y, and the win margins are so uniform that they indicate a complete architectural generation gap. The i7-6700’s highest relative performance comes in single-core R23, but even there it only reaches 17.7% of the Xeon’s score. For any workload that scales with Cinebench-style rendering or computation, the Xeon Gold 6336Y is the clear choice, and the Core i7-6700 offers no competitive benchmark result to leverage.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y has an average benchmark score of 11191, while the Intel Core i7-6700 averages 11074. The Xeon leads by 117 points, or roughly 1.1%.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core performance?

A: The Xeon Gold 6336Y scores 38689 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, which is 466.6% higher than the Core i7-6700’s 6828. The Xeon’s 24-core, 48-thread configuration provides a massive parallel processing advantage.

Q: Does the Core i7-6700 have any ECC memory support?

A: No. The Core i7-6700 does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon Gold 6336Y does. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting server workloads, whereas the i7-6700 is limited to consumer desktop use.

Q: What are the memory bandwidth differences?

A: The Xeon Gold 6336Y offers 204.8 GB/s of memory bandwidth via an eight-channel DDR4 bus, compared to the Core i7-6700’s 34.1 GB/s over a dual-channel bus. The Xeon provides six times the memory throughput, which is critical for data-intensive server tasks.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Core i7-6700 boosts to 4.00 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon Gold 6336Y’s 3.60 GHz boost clock. Despite the lower boost clock, the Xeon still wins every single-core benchmark, illustrating the architectural efficiency of Ice Lake over Skylake.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The Xeon Gold 6336Y is listed as Active production status, while the Core i7-6700 is End-of-life. The i7-6700 was released in 2015, and the Xeon in 2021.

Architecture Differences

The two processors embody completely different design philosophies and eras. The Xeon Gold 6336Y uses Intel’s Ice Lake-SP architecture on a 10 nm process, while the Core i7-6700 is built on the older Skylake architecture with a 14 nm process. This process shrink, combined with a newer microarchitecture, accounts for the Xeon’s superior performance per clock despite its lower 2.40 GHz base clock versus the i7-6700’s 3.40 GHz.

Core and thread counts diverge sharply: the Xeon offers 24 cores and 48 threads, while the i7-6700 has only 4 cores and 8 threads. Cache hierarchies also differ. The Xeon provides 64 KB of L1 and 1 MB of L2 per core, with a 36 MB shared L3 cache. The i7-6700 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but only 256 KB of L2 per core and an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache is 4.5 times bigger, which benefits workloads with large working sets.

Memory support is another fundamental split. The Xeon uses eight-channel DDR4 memory with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and supports ECC. The i7-6700 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 over a dual-channel bus, delivering just 34.1 GB/s, and lacks ECC. PCIe connectivity also favors the Xeon: it provides Gen 4 with 64 lanes (CPU only), while the i7-6700 offers Gen 3 with 16 lanes. The i7-6700 includes integrated HD Graphics 530, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics, reflecting its server/workstation focus.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y is the superior processor in every measured benchmark, with a 6-0 head-to-head record and margins exceeding 466% in all Cinebench tests. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, 36 MB L3 cache, and 204.8 GB/s memory bandwidth make it the obvious choice for multi-threaded server, workstation, or virtualization workloads. The Core i7-6700, with 4 cores, 8 threads, 8 MB L3 cache, and 34.1 GB/s bandwidth, is a legacy desktop part that cannot compete on raw performance.

However, the i7-6700 retains one practical advantage: a 65 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 185 W, which translates to lower power consumption and heat output. It also has integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks, and a higher boost clock (4.00 GHz versus 3.60 GHz). For a basic desktop system where single-threaded responsiveness and low power matter more than core counts, the i7-6700 could still serve, but the benchmark results show it will lose in every compute-heavy task. The Xeon Gold 6336Y is the definitive winner for anyone prioritizing performance, with the i7-6700 only relevant for legacy compatibility or ultra-low-power desktop builds.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification, starting with the most basic counts. The Xeon Gold 6336Y has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Core i7-6700 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.40 GHz for the Xeon and 3.40 GHz for the i7-6700, with boost clocks of 3.60 GHz and 4.00 GHz, respectively. TDP ratings are 185 W for the Xeon and 65 W for the i7-6700.

Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 4189, while the i7-6700 uses Intel Socket 1151. The Xeon is built on a 10 nm process with Ice Lake architecture, while the i7-6700 uses 14 nm Skylake. L2 cache per core is 1 MB on the Xeon versus 256 KB on the i7-6700, and L3 cache totals 36 MB versus 8 MB. Memory support includes eight-channel DDR4 with 204.8 GB/s bandwidth and ECC for the Xeon, versus dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 with 34.1 GB/s and no ECC for the i7-6700.

PCIe lanes are 64 Gen 4 on the Xeon, compared to 16 Gen 3 on the i7-6700. The i7-6700 has integrated HD Graphics 530; the Xeon has none. Market segments are also distinct: the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part, while the i7-6700 is a Desktop part. The i7-6700 launched with an MSRP of $303, while the Xeon has no listed launch MSRP. The i7-6700 is End-of-life, whereas the Xeon remains Active.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon Gold 6336Y wins every benchmark, so its strengths are comprehensive. It excels in multi-threaded rendering, as shown by Cinebench R23 multi-core scores of 38689 versus 6828, and in single-threaded performance, with R23 single-core at 5462 versus 964. The Xeon’s 48 threads and 36 MB L3 cache make it ideal for virtualization, database servers, and scientific computing, where parallel throughput and memory bandwidth (204.8 GB/s) are critical. Its ECC support and 64 PCIe Gen 4 lanes further cement its role for error-tolerant, high-I/O server environments.

The Core i7-6700, despite losing all head-to-head tests, has a few niche advantages. Its 65 W TDP is less than a third of the Xeon’s 185 W, making it suitable for compact or power-sensitive desktop builds. The integrated HD Graphics 530 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems, which the Xeon cannot offer. Its higher boost clock of 4.00 GHz provides a theoretical advantage in lightly-threaded legacy applications, though the benchmark data shows the Xeon’s superior IPC overcomes this in Cinebench. The i7-6700 also supports DDR3 memory, which could reduce upgrade costs for users with existing DDR3 modules. Ultimately, the i7-6700 wins only in power efficiency, integrated graphics availability, and memory flexibility—not in any performance metric measured here.