CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-6700TE and Intel Xeon E-2124 are both 4-core processors on the Intel Socket 1151 platform, but they target different segments and deliver markedly different performance profiles. The Xeon E-2124 is the clear performance leader in every measured benchmark, while the Core i7-6700TE counters with a dramatically lower power envelope. The data below breaks down exactly where each chip stands.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E-2124 wins all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, with a consistent performance advantage of approximately 8% across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 577 against the Core i7-6700TE's 531, an 8% lead. The single-core R15 result shows a similar gap: 81 for the Xeon versus 74 for the i7-6700TE, a delta of 8.6%.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon E-2124 posts 2408 multi-core and 339 single-core, while the i7-6700TE manages 2214 and 312 respectively. The deltas are 8.1% and 8%. Cinebench R23 follows the same pattern: the Xeon scores 5734 multi-core and 809 single-core, against 5273 and 744 for the i7-6700TE, both an 8% difference.

The Xeon's advantage is consistent and uniform, not concentrated in any one test type. It wins by the same margin in both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, suggesting a fundamental clock-speed and architectural edge rather than a thread-count advantage. Notably, the i7-6700TE has 8 threads to the Xeon's 4, yet still loses multi-core tests by 8%, meaning the Xeon's per-core efficiency more than compensates for half the thread count.

In the broader context, both processors sit at the 40th percentile among all CPUs. The i7-6700TE's average benchmark score is 1666, while the Xeon E-2124's is 1658, a 0.5% difference in the i7's favor when averaged across all benchmarks. This counterintuitive result stems from the fact that the i7-6700TE has Geekbench scores (3154 multi-core, 1028 single-core) that are not present in the Xeon's benchmark suite, skewing the aggregate comparison.

The nearest rival comparisons reinforce the close overall parity. The i7-6700TE is 0.1% ahead of the Intel Core i5-7600T, 0.4% ahead of the Intel Core i7-4770HQ, and 0.6% ahead of the Intel Core i5-4670K. The Xeon E-2124 is 0.1% behind the Core i7-4770HQ, 0.2% ahead of the Core i5-4670K, and 0.3% ahead of the AMD Ryzen 5 3550H.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward choice for raw performance: the Intel Xeon E-2124 is the faster processor in every single benchmark recorded. It wins all six Cinebench tests, from R15 through R23, in both single-core and multi-core configurations, with a consistent 8% margin. If the workload is purely about extracting maximum compute throughput, the Xeon E-2124 is the superior part.

However, the i7-6700TE is not without its own rationale. It draws 35 W TDP against the Xeon's 71 W, a 50% reduction in power envelope. For a system builder prioritizing thermal management, quiet operation, or energy efficiency in a compact chassis, the i7-6700TE offers a compelling trade-off: roughly 8% less performance in exchange for half the power consumption. The i7-6700TE also features 8 threads versus the Xeon's 4, which could provide better responsiveness in lightly-threaded multitasking scenarios, though the benchmark data does not show this translating into a multi-core win.

The Xeon E-2124 is additionally marked as end-of-life production status, while the i7-6700TE remains active. For long-term availability and supply chain stability, the i7-6700TE has the practical edge. The Xeon also carries a launch MSRP of $198, though the i7-6700TE has no listed launch price.

Choose the Xeon E-2124 for maximum benchmark performance and ECC memory support. Choose the Core i7-6700TE for lower power draw, active production status, and hyper-threading.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent different architectural generations. The Core i7-6700TE is built on the Skylake architecture, while the Xeon E-2124 uses Coffee Lake (specifically Coffee Lake-S WS). Both are fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process node, but the Xeon E-2124 has a smaller die size at 126 mm², whereas the i7-6700TE's die size is not listed.

Both chips feature 4 physical cores, but the i7-6700TE supports 8 threads via hyper-threading, while the Xeon E-2124 is limited to 4 threads. The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Clock speeds differ substantially: the i7-6700TE runs at 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost, while the Xeon E-2124 runs at 3.30 GHz base and 4.30 GHz boost. The Xeon's higher clocks explain its consistent benchmark advantage.

Memory support is DDR4 for both, each with a dual-channel bus. However, the Xeon E-2124 offers higher memory bandwidth at 42.7 GB/s versus the i7-6700TE's 34.1 GB/s. Critically, the Xeon E-2124 supports ECC memory, while the i7-6700TE does not, a significant differentiator for reliability-sensitive workloads. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Integrated graphics differ as well: the i7-6700TE includes HD Graphics 530, while the Xeon E-2124 has UHD Graphics P630. The i7-6700TE targets the desktop market segment, whereas the Xeon E-2124 is positioned for server/workstation use. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The i7-6700TE was released in August 2015, while the Xeon E-2124 came later in July 2018. The Xeon E-2124 is part of the Xeon E-2100 series.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 wins every single-core benchmark. It scores 81 in Cinebench R15, 339 in R20, and 809 in R23, versus 74, 312, and 744 for the Core i7-6700TE, an 8-8.6% advantage in each test.

Q: Does the Core i7-6700TE's hyper-threading help it win multi-core tests?

A: No. Despite having 8 threads to the Xeon E-2124's 4, the i7-6700TE loses all three multi-core Cinebench tests by exactly 8%: 531 vs 577 in R15, 2214 vs 2408 in R20, and 5273 vs 5734 in R23.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Core i7-6700TE has a TDP of 35 W, while the Xeon E-2124 has a TDP of 71 W. The i7-6700TE draws roughly half the power of the Xeon.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E-2124 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-6700TE does not include ECC support.

Q: Which processor has higher memory bandwidth?

A: The Xeon E-2124 offers 42.7 GB/s of memory bandwidth, compared to 34.1 GB/s for the Core i7-6700TE. Both use dual-channel DDR4.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: The Core i7-6700TE is listed as active production status, while the Xeon E-2124 is marked as end-of-life.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E-2124 wins decisively in raw compute performance. Every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, six Cinebench tests covering three versions and both single and multi-core modes, goes to the Xeon with an 8% margin. This makes it the clear choice for workloads where benchmark scores directly translate to productivity: rendering, compilation, scientific computing, or any CPU-bound task where a consistent 8% speedup matters. The Xeon also wins on memory bandwidth (42.7 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s) and ECC memory support, making it suitable for server or workstation environments where data integrity is paramount. Its higher base clock of 3.30 GHz and boost clock of 4.30 GHz provide a substantial frequency advantage over the i7-6700TE's 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost.

The Core i7-6700TE wins in efficiency and system integration. Its 35 W TDP is less than half of the Xeon's 71 W, making it better suited for compact, passively cooled, or power-constrained builds. The i7-6700TE's hyper-threading doubles the thread count to 8, which may help with multitasking scenarios that benefit from additional logical processors, even though the benchmark data shows the Xeon still wins multi-core tests. The i7-6700TE is also an active production part, ensuring ongoing availability, whereas the Xeon E-2124 has reached end-of-life status. For a system where energy costs, thermal output, or long-term procurement stability are the primary concerns, the i7-6700TE is the more practical choice despite its performance deficit.