Intel Core i7-6700TE vs Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unusually one-sided. The Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 wins every single recorded head-to-head test, with a consistent margin of roughly 12 percent across all six Cinebench runs. The Core i7-6700TE, while matching the Xeon in core count, threads, and power envelope, never closes the gap in any measured workload. For buyers choosing between these two 35-watt, 4-core, 8-thread processors, the Xeon E3-1265L v4 is the clear performance pick in the database’s recorded measurements.

The Xeon also carries features the i7 lacks: ECC memory support, a server/workstation market segment designation, and a larger integrated GPU in the form of Iris Pro P6300 versus the i7’s HD Graphics 530. The i7-6700TE, however, is still listed as active production, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The i7 also supports DDR4 memory and has a higher theoretical memory bandwidth (34.1 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s), plus a larger L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB). So the i7 is not without its own rationale, particularly for new builds where memory type and availability matter more than raw Cinebench scores.

That said, if the decision rests purely on the recorded benchmark results, the Xeon E3-1265L v4 is the winner. The i7-6700TE trails in both single-core and multi-core tests, and the data shows no scenario where the i7 overtakes the Xeon. The Verdict: pick the Xeon for maximum measured compute performance and ECC support; pick the i7 for DDR4 memory, newer socket compatibility, and active production status.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures. The Xeon E3-1265L v4 uses Broadwell, specifically the Broadwell-DT codename, built on a 14 nm process node. The Core i7-6700TE uses Skylake, also on a 14 nm process. Both are manufactured by Intel, but the die sizes differ: the Xeon has a recorded die size of 182 mm², while the i7’s die size is not recorded in the database.

Both CPUs have 4 cores and 8 threads, with identical per-core L1 and L2 cache configurations (64 KB per core and 256 KB per core, respectively). The shared L3 cache, however, is larger on the i7: 8 MB versus 6 MB on the Xeon. This difference could theoretically help the i7 in cache-sensitive workloads, but the recorded benchmarks do not reflect any such advantage.

The integrated graphics differ significantly. The Xeon carries Intel Iris Pro P6300, while the i7 uses HD Graphics 530. The database does not record GPU benchmark scores for either, so the performance implications of this difference are not quantified. However, the Iris Pro branding historically suggests a more capable graphics engine, and the Xeon’s server/workstation classification aligns with a part designed for professional use cases.

Memory support is another major architectural split. The Xeon supports DDR3 memory, while the i7 supports DDR4. Both are dual-channel, but the i7’s memory bandwidth is recorded at 34.1 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s for the Xeon. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the i7. This makes the Xeon the more appropriate choice for error-tolerant server or workstation workloads, while the i7’s DDR4 support aligns with desktop platforms of its era.

The socket is different as well: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1150, while the i7 uses Intel Socket 1151. This means they are not drop-in interchangeable on the same motherboard. The Xeon’s release date is recorded as June 2015, while the i7’s is August 2015, roughly three months later. Both have locked multipliers, so neither is intended for overclocking.

Neither processor has a recorded transistor count, and the i7 lacks a die size entry. The PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data covers six Cinebench tests, and the Xeon wins all of them. The margins are remarkably consistent, hovering around 12 percent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 595 against the i7’s 531, a 12.1 percent lead. Single-core R15 shows a slightly larger gap: 84 versus 74, a 13.5 percent difference. This pattern repeats in R20 and R23.

In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2482 versus 2214, again a 12.1 percent lead. Single-core R20 shows 350 versus 312, a 12.2 percent margin. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 5910 versus 5273, a 12.1 percent lead. Single-core R23 shows 834 versus 744, also 12.1 percent.

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Across all six tests, the Xeon’s advantage stays between 12.1 and 13.5 percent, with no test where the i7 closes the gap or flips the result. This suggests a steady performance advantage tied to the Xeon’s design, rather than workload-specific luck. The single-core R15 test shows the largest margin, at 13.5 percent, while the other five tests cluster tightly around 12.1 to 12.2 percent.

The i7-6700TE does have additional Geekbench scores in the database: 3154 multi-core and 1028 single-core. The Xeon has no recorded Geekbench results, so a direct comparison in that test is not possible. However, the Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1709, while the i7’s is 1666. The Xeon also sits at the 40th percentile among all CPUs, and the i7 also sits at the 40th percentile, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite the Xeon’s head-to-head wins.

The i7’s nearest rivals include the Core i5-7600T (average score 1664, delta 0.1 percent), Core i7-4770HQ (1660, delta 0.4 percent), Xeon E-2124 (1658, delta 0.5 percent), and Core i5-4670K (1656, delta 0.6 percent). The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Xeon E5-1620 v3 (1709, delta 0 percent), Core i7-990X (1713, delta -0.2 percent), Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U (1715, delta -0.4 percent), and Core i7-4910MQ (1716, delta -0.4 percent). These rival lists reinforce that the Xeon’s average score is slightly higher than the i7’s, and both sit near similar mid-range competitors.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several recorded fields. The Xeon E3-1265L v4 has a base clock of 2.30 GHz, while the i7-6700TE has a base clock of 2.40 GHz. Boost clocks differ similarly: 3.30 GHz for the Xeon versus 3.40 GHz for the i7. Despite the i7’s higher clocks, the Xeon still wins every benchmark, suggesting that clock speed alone does not explain the performance gap. Other architectural factors, such as the Xeon’s Broadwell design and possibly different power management behavior, appear to matter more.

The TDP is identical at 35 watts for both. The socket differs: Socket 1150 for the Xeon, Socket 1151 for the i7. The architecture names differ: Broadwell for the Xeon, Skylake for the i7. The codenames are Broadwell-DT and Skylake, respectively. The generation labels reflect this: Xeon E3 (Broadwell-DT) versus Core i7 (Skylake).

L3 cache is 6 MB on the Xeon and 8 MB on the i7. Memory support is DDR3 for the Xeon and DDR4 for the i7. Memory bandwidth is 29.9 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but absent on the i7. Integrated graphics: Iris Pro P6300 versus HD Graphics 530. Market segment: Server/Workstation versus Desktop. Production status: End-of-life versus Active. Release date: June 2015 versus August 2015. Launch MSRP: the Xeon has a recorded launch MSRP of $417, while the i7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Part numbers differ: SR2B3 for the Xeon, SR2LP for the i7.

The die size is recorded only for the Xeon at 182 mm². Both CPUs have 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU. Both have locked multipliers. Neither has a recorded transistor count.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon E3-1265L v4 has an average benchmark score of 1709, while the Core i7-6700TE has an average score of 1666. The Xeon is ahead by 43 points.

Q: Does the Core i7-6700TE ever win any head-to-head test?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head benchmarks, the Xeon E3-1265L v4 wins all six tests. The i7-6700TE has zero wins in that comparison.

Q: What is the largest performance margin between the two?

A: The largest margin is in Cinebench R15 single-core, where the Xeon scores 84 versus the i7’s 74, a delta of 13.5 percent. All other tests show margins between 12.1 and 12.2 percent.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E3-1265L v4 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-6700TE does not.

Q: Which CPU supports DDR4 memory?

A: The Core i7-6700TE supports DDR4 memory. The Xeon E3-1265L v4 supports DDR3 memory.

Q: Are both CPUs still in production?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1265L v4 is marked as end-of-life, while the Core i7-6700TE is marked as active production.

Q: What is the TDP of both processors?

A: Both have a TDP of 35 watts.

Q: Which CPU has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Core i7-6700TE has an 8 MB shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E3-1265L v4 has a 6 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Xeon?

A: The Xeon E3-1265L v4 has a recorded launch MSRP of $417. The Core i7-6700TE has no recorded launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1265L v4 wins every recorded benchmark. That makes its case straightforward: if the workload is measured by Cinebench R15, R20, or R23, the Xeon is faster by roughly 12 percent in both single-core and multi-core tests. Its ECC memory support also gives it a distinct advantage in server or workstation environments where data integrity is critical. The Xeon’s Iris Pro P6300 integrated graphics, while unbenchmarked in this database, is a more capable GPU on paper than the i7’s HD Graphics 530, which could matter for systems without a discrete graphics card. The Xeon’s server/workstation market segment further reinforces its suitability for professional, always-on, or error-sensitive deployments.

The Core i7-6700TE, while losing all head-to-head tests, still has its own territory. Its active production status means it is still available for new systems, while the Xeon is end-of-life. The i7 supports DDR4 memory, which is a more modern memory standard and offers higher recorded bandwidth (34.1 GB/s versus 29.9 GB/s). Its larger 8 MB L3 cache could benefit workloads that are not captured by the recorded Cinebench tests, though the database provides no evidence of such an advantage. The i7’s desktop market segment and Socket 1151 compatibility make it a more natural fit for consumer or general-purpose desktop builds. Its higher base and boost clocks (2.40 GHz and 3.40 GHz) are also worth noting, even though they do not translate into benchmark wins in the recorded data.

The i7’s Geekbench scores, which the Xeon does not have, show multi-core performance of 3154 and single-core of 1028. These are not directly comparable to the Xeon, but they provide an alternative view of the i7’s capabilities. The i7 also has a slightly lower average benchmark score than the Xeon (1666 versus 1709), so the overall data picture favors the Xeon.

In practical terms, the Xeon is the pick for anyone who wants the highest measured compute performance in a 35-watt envelope, especially if ECC memory is a requirement. The i7 is the pick for those who need DDR4 support, an active production part, or a desktop-oriented platform. The data does not show any workload where the i7 outperforms the Xeon, so the i7’s case rests on platform and memory features rather than raw speed.

For a system that will run Cinebench-style workloads continuously, the Xeon is the clear winner. For a system that must use DDR4 memory or requires a currently manufactured processor, the i7 is the only option between the two. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and older DDR3 memory support are real limitations, but the recorded benchmarks show that in pure CPU performance, it remains the stronger part.