Intel Core i7-6700 vs Intel Xeon W-3175X Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W-3175X wins every single head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i7-6700, with a perfect 8-0 record. The most extreme deltas appear in multi-core workloads, where the Xeon’s 28-core, 56-thread configuration simply overwhelms the Core i7’s 4-core, 8-thread setup. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 3900 against the Core i7’s 688, a delta of -82.4% (meaning the Core i7 trails by that margin). The same pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core (16250 vs 2867, -82.4%) and Cinebench R23 multi-core (38692 vs 6828, -82.4%). These are not close contests; the Xeon delivers roughly five to six times the multi-threaded output in every Cinebench iteration.

Single-core results tell a slightly different story, though the Xeon still wins decisively. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 550 versus the Core i7’s 96, a -82.5% delta. Cinebench R20 single-core shows 2294 against 404 (-82.4%), and Cinebench R23 single-core shows 5462 against 964 (-82.4%). The consistency of that -82.4% figure across all three Cinebench single-core tests is notable, suggesting the performance gap scales almost linearly with the clock and architectural differences rather than workload-specific quirks.

Geekbench narrows the gap considerably in single-core. The Xeon scores 1472 versus the Core i7’s 1264, a delta of only -14.1%. This is the smallest margin anywhere in the dataset, and it reflects the fact that Geekbench’s single-core test is less sensitive to raw core count and more dependent on per-thread efficiency. The Core i7’s 4.00 GHz boost clock, while lower than the Xeon’s 4.30 GHz, still allows it to remain competitive in this specific metric. However, in Geekbench multi-core, the Xeon reasserts dominance with 14331 against 4201, a -70.7% delta. The pattern is clear: the Xeon wins by a landslide in parallel workloads, and by a smaller but still comfortable margin in single-threaded tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon W-3175X, with a score of 5462, versus the Intel Core i7-6700’s 964, a delta of -82.4%.

Q: How large is the multi-core gap in Geekbench?

A: The Xeon scores 14331, while the Core i7 scores 4201, giving the Xeon a 70.7% advantage in that test.

Q: Are there any benchmarks where the Core i7 wins?

A: No. The head-to-head dataset records zero wins for the Core i7 across all eight tests, while the Xeon wins all eight.

Q: What is the difference in memory bandwidth between the two?

A: The Xeon W-3175X supports six-channel memory with 128.0 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i7-6700 uses dual-channel memory with 34.1 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Does the Core i7 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i7-6700 includes HD Graphics 530, while the Xeon W-3175X has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor has a higher transistor count?

A: The Xeon W-3175X lists 8,000 million transistors on a 688 mm² die, whereas the Core i7-6700 does not have a listed transistor count or die size in the database.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the same Skylake architecture family, but they diverge sharply in scale and purpose. The Core i7-6700 is built on the Skylake design with 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Xeon W-3175X is a Skylake-W variant with 28 cores and 56 threads. The process node is identical at 14 nm, and both are manufactured by Intel, but the physical implementation is vastly different. The Xeon W-3175X carries 8,000 million transistors on a 688 mm² die, whereas the Core i7-6700 has no transistor or die size data recorded. That die-size disparity hints at the Xeon’s much larger silicon footprint, which accommodates seven times the cores.

Cache hierarchies also scale accordingly. Both processors allocate 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the L2 cache differs: the Core i7 uses 256 KB per core, while the Xeon uses 1 MB per core. L3 cache is a major differentiator, with the Core i7 offering 8 MB shared, compared to the Xeon’s 38.5 MB shared. This nearly fivefold increase in L3 capacity directly supports the Xeon’s ability to feed 28 cores with shared data, reducing contention in multi-threaded workloads.

Memory subsystems are another architectural split. The Core i7 supports DDR3 and DDR4 memory over a dual-channel bus, yielding 34.1 GB/s of bandwidth. The Xeon supports only DDR4 but over a six-channel bus, giving it 128.0 GB/s of bandwidth, nearly four times the Core i7’s throughput. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Core i7 does not, aligning with its server/workstation positioning. PCIe connectivity differs as well: the Core i7 provides 16 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon provides 48 Gen 3 lanes, triple the expansion capacity for GPUs, accelerators, and high-speed storage.

The Xeon W-3175X is the only one of the two with an unlocked multiplier, allowing overclocking, whereas the Core i7-6700 is multiplier-locked. The Core i7 includes integrated HD Graphics 530, a feature entirely absent on the Xeon, which requires a discrete GPU. Production status is end-of-life for both, but their release dates differ: the Core i7 launched in mid-2015, while the Xeon arrived in early 2019. The Xeon’s part number is SRF6LQRDK, and the Core i7’s is SR2L2.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows a clear segmentation between desktop and workstation/server parts. Core count is 4 for the Core i7 versus 28 for the Xeon, with threads at 8 versus 56. Base clocks are close: 3.40 GHz for the Core i7, 3.10 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks favor the Xeon at 4.30 GHz versus 4.00 GHz. Thermal design power differs massively, 65 W for the Core i7 and 255 W for the Xeon, reflecting the Xeon’s much higher power draw to sustain its core count.

Sockets are incompatible, with the Core i7 on Intel Socket 1151 and the Xeon on Intel Socket 3647. The codename differs slightly, Skylake for the Core i7 and Skylake-W for the Xeon, with generations listed as Core i7 (Skylake) and Xeon W (Skylake-W). The Xeon has a larger L2 cache per core (1 MB versus 256 KB) and a larger L3 cache (38.5 MB versus 8 MB). Memory support diverges: the Core i7 accepts DDR3 and DDR4, while the Xeon only accepts DDR4. Memory bus width is dual-channel versus six-channel, and bandwidth is 34.1 GB/s versus 128.0 GB/s. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe lanes are 16 on the Core i7 versus 48 on the Xeon, both Gen 3. Integrated graphics exist only on the Core i7. Market segment is Desktop for the Core i7 and Server/Workstation for the Xeon. Launch MSRP is $303 for the Core i7 and $2999 for the Xeon, each stated once here as recorded in the database. The multiplier is unlocked only on the Xeon.

The Verdict

The benchmark data leads to a straightforward conclusion. The Intel Xeon W-3175X is the superior processor in every measured head-to-head test, with a perfect 8-0 win record. The Core i7-6700 never comes close in multi-core workloads, trailing by 70% to 82% depending on the test. Even in single-core Geekbench, where the Core i7 gets closest, the Xeon still wins by 14.1%. There is no scenario in the recorded data where the Core i7 takes a victory.

The Xeon’s dominance is rooted in its 28 cores, 56 threads, larger caches, and six-channel memory, all of which feed heavily parallel workloads. The Core i7’s only advantages are qualitative: it has integrated graphics, a lower TDP of 65 W versus 255 W, and a much lower launch MSRP of $303 versus $2999. But those are specification differences, not benchmark wins. For raw performance, the Xeon is the clear choice.

The percentile data places both processors at the 66th percentile versus all CPUs, which is curious given their performance disparity. That parity likely reflects the fact that the database averages many diverse workloads, and the Core i7’s modest scores in some tests are offset by its relatively strong single-thread and legacy performance. However, the head-to-head results are unambiguous, and any user prioritizing compute throughput should select the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W-3175X wins in every benchmark category where multi-core scaling matters. Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests all show the Xeon delivering scores roughly five to six times higher than the Core i7. Geekbench multi-core shows a 70.7% advantage. These results make the Xeon the appropriate pick for rendering, scientific computing, virtualization, and any workload that can utilize 28 cores and 56 threads. Its 38.5 MB L3 cache, 128.0 GB/s memory bandwidth, and 48 PCIe lanes further support multi-GPU and memory-intensive server tasks.

The Core i7-6700 does not win any benchmark, but it retains relevance in specific contexts. Its 65 W TDP means it draws far less power, making it suitable for compact desktop builds where thermals and energy use are priorities. Its integrated HD Graphics 530 provides basic display output without a discrete GPU, which is useful for entry-level systems. Its dual-channel memory support and 16 PCIe lanes are sufficient for typical desktop workloads like web browsing, office applications, and light productivity. The nearest rivals in the database for the Core i7 include AMD EPYC 9224, AMD EPYC 7542, AMD Ryzen 5 3500U, and Intel Xeon Gold 6336Y, all within 1% of its average score of 11074, indicating that the Core i7 competes closely with those CPUs in overall average performance, despite losing to the Xeon in direct comparison.

The Xeon’s nearest rivals, including Intel Xeon Gold 6338N, Intel Xeon E3-1565L v5, Intel Xeon Gold 6312U, and Intel Xeon Platinum 8280, are all within 1.4% of its average score of 10369. That suggests the Xeon sits in a competitive tier among high-core-count server chips, even though it is end-of-life. For users who need maximum compute density and can supply the required 255 W power and cooling, the Xeon is the data-backed choice. For users who need a low-power desktop processor with integrated graphics and a modest price point, the Core i7 remains a viable, albeit losing, option in raw performance terms.