Intel Core i7-6700TE vs Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 Comparison

The recorded benchmark data places the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the Intel Core i7-6700TE in the same performance percentile, both at the 40th percentile against all CPUs in the database. Despite this similar overall standing, their average benchmark scores differ, with the Xeon E5-1620 v3 averaging 1709 and the Core i7-6700TE averaging 1666. The head-to-head results are unequivocal in favor of the Xeon, which wins all six recorded Cinebench comparisons. The following analysis breaks down these results, examines the architectural reasons behind them, and clarifies which processor suits specific workloads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark suite consists entirely of Cinebench tests, covering both multicore and singlecore workloads across three versions of the renderer: R15, R20, and R23. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 posts a clean sweep, winning all six comparisons. The margin of victory is remarkably consistent, hovering around 12 percent in every test.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 scores 595 against 531 for the Core i7-6700TE, a delta of 12.1 percent. The singlecore R15 test shows an even larger gap, with the Xeon scoring 84 versus 74, a 13.5 percent advantage. This pattern continues in Cinebench R20. The multicore test yields 2482 for the Xeon and 2214 for the i7-6700TE, again a 12.1 percent difference. The singlecore R20 test shows the Xeon at 350 and the competitor at 312, a 12.2 percent lead.

The most recent versions of the benchmark, Cinebench R23, reinforce the trend. The multicore result is 5910 for the Xeon E5-1620 v3 and 5273 for the Core i7-6700TE, a 12.1 percent delta. The singlecore R23 test shows scores of 834 and 744, respectively, also a 12.1 percent difference. The data indicates that the Xeon's advantage is not dependent on the benchmark version or the thread count. It wins by nearly the same proportion whether the workload is heavily threaded or strictly single-threaded.

The Core i7-6700TE has no wins in this comparison, with a final tally of 6 wins for the Xeon E5-1620 v3 and 0 for the i7-6700TE. The consistency of the deltas suggests a fundamental performance gap rather than a workload-specific quirk. The average benchmark score for the Xeon is 1709, while the i7-6700TE averages 1666, a difference of 43 points that aligns with the per-test margins.

When placed against their nearest rivals in the database, the context becomes clearer. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 is effectively tied with the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4, which shows an identical average score of 1709 and a delta of 0 percent. It trails the Intel Core i7-990X by just 0.2 percent and the AMD Ryzen 7 PRO 2700U by 0.4 percent. The Core i7-6700TE, meanwhile, sits slightly ahead of its nearest listed rival, the Intel Core i5-7600T, by 0.1 percent. It also leads the Intel Core i7-4770HQ by 0.4 percent, the Intel Xeon E-2124 by 0.5 percent, and the Intel Core i5-4670K by 0.6 percent. These positions explain why both processors occupy the same 40th percentile, as their aggregate scores are close, but the head-to-head data shows that the Xeon holds a distinct edge over the i7-6700TE specifically.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents a straightforward verdict for those choosing between these two specific processors. The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is the faster CPU in every measured workload. If the priority is raw compute performance, particularly for rendering or other CPU-intensive tasks, the Xeon is the clear choice based on its consistent 12 percent advantage across all Cinebench versions.

The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins because of its higher clock speeds and larger cache. Its base clock of 3.50 GHz and boost clock of 3.60 GHz far exceed the i7-6700TE's 2.40 GHz base and 3.40 GHz boost. This clock advantage is likely the primary driver of its singlecore wins. The Xeon also carries 10 MB of shared L3 cache compared to 8 MB on the i7-6700TE, which can benefit workloads that reuse data sets.

However, the verdict is not solely about speed. The Core i7-6700TE has its own merits, but they are not reflected in the Cinebench scores. The i7-6700TE is a 35-watt part, while the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is rated at 140 watts. This massive difference in thermal design power means the i7-6700TE is far more efficient and easier to cool. It also uses the Intel Socket 1151 platform, which is more common in consumer systems, whereas the Xeon requires the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, typically associated with server or workstation boards.

The i7-6700TE also includes integrated graphics, specifically the HD Graphics 530, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. For a system that requires a display output without a discrete GPU, the i7-6700TE is the only option of the two. Additionally, the i7-6700TE supports dual-channel memory, which is simpler and cheaper to implement, while the Xeon's quad-channel memory bus offers higher theoretical bandwidth at 68.3 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s, but requires more memory modules to populate.

The production status also matters. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 is listed as end-of-life, while the Core i7-6700TE is marked as active. For new system builds, the i7-6700TE has a clear availability advantage. The Xeon is a legacy part. The data does not include launch MSRP values for either processor, so a direct cost comparison is not possible from the database, but the platform differences imply different total system costs.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel architectures and generations. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 is based on the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP variant, and belongs to the Xeon E5 generation. It is fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process node. The Core i7-6700TE is based on the Skylake architecture and belongs to the Core i7 generation. It uses a smaller 14 nm process node.

This process difference is significant. The 14 nm node allows the i7-6700TE to achieve its low 35-watt TDP while still providing four cores and eight threads. The Xeon, on the 22 nm node, requires 140 watts to reach its higher clock speeds. The die size and transistor counts reflect this. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The i7-6700TE has no transistor count or die size listed in the database, but its smaller process node would typically allow for a more compact die.

The cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache differs, with the Xeon offering 10 MB shared and the i7-6700TE offering 8 MB shared. This 2 MB difference in L3 can influence performance in workloads that fit within the larger cache.

Memory support is another key differentiation. Both support DDR4 memory, but the Xeon E5-1620 v3 uses a quad-channel memory bus, providing a theoretical bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Core i7-6700TE uses a dual-channel bus, halving the theoretical bandwidth to 34.1 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the i7-6700TE does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting workloads common in server environments.

PCIe connectivity also differs. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i7-6700TE provides Gen 3 with only 16 lanes. This is a substantial difference for systems that need many expansion cards, NVMe drives, or GPUs. The Xeon's 40 lanes are a hallmark of the server platform, while 16 lanes are typical for desktop parts.

The integrated graphics situation is a clear split. The Core i7-6700TE includes HD Graphics 530, making it a complete processor for a basic system. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has no integrated graphics, requiring a discrete GPU for any display output. This also means the Xeon relies entirely on its CPU cores for all processing tasks.

Finally, the sockets are incompatible. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, which is a high-end desktop and server socket. The Core i7-6700TE uses Intel Socket 1151, a mainstream desktop socket. This locks each processor into its respective platform and dictates the motherboard choice.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 is faster in all recorded singlecore tests. It scores 84 in Cinebench R15 singlecore against 74 for the Core i7-6700TE, a 13.5 percent advantage. In R20, it scores 350 versus 312, and in R23, it scores 834 versus 744, both showing a 12.1 to 12.2 percent lead.

Q: What is the performance difference in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins every multicore test by 12.1 percent. Its scores are 595 in R15, 2482 in R20, and 5910 in R23. The Core i7-6700TE scores 531, 2214, and 5273 in the same tests.

Q: Does the Core i7-6700TE have any advantage in power consumption?

A: Yes, the i7-6700TE has a significantly lower TDP of 35 watts compared to the Xeon E5-1620 v3's 140 watts. This makes the i7-6700TE a much more power-efficient part, suitable for thermally constrained systems.

Q: Can either processor use ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-6700TE does not list ECC support in the database.

Q: Which processor has more PCIe lanes?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 provides 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i7-6700TE provides 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes. This gives the Xeon a major advantage for expansion-heavy systems.

Q: Do both processors have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core i7-6700TE includes HD Graphics 530, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has no integrated graphics. A discrete GPU is required for the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data shows that the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins in all pure compute scenarios. For rendering, video encoding, scientific simulation, or any application that scales with CPU cores and clock speed, the Xeon is the superior choice. Its 12 percent lead in multicore workloads is substantial. Its 40 PCIe lanes also make it the winner for systems with multiple GPUs, high-speed networking cards, or many NVMe storage devices. The quad-channel memory bus and ECC support further cement its position for server and workstation duties where data integrity and memory bandwidth are critical.

The Core i7-6700TE, despite losing every benchmark, wins in entirely different categories. Its 35-watt TDP makes it the clear winner for low-power, silent, or compact systems where heat dissipation is a challenge. The integrated HD Graphics 530 means it can power a basic desktop without a separate graphics card, which is impossible with the Xeon. Its active production status and mainstream Intel Socket 1151 platform make it a more practical choice for current system builds or upgrades. The dual-channel memory setup is also less expensive to populate, requiring only two modules to reach full bandwidth.

The choice between the two comes down to the primary requirement. If the goal is maximum CPU performance and the system has the power budget and cooling to handle a 140-watt processor, the Xeon E5-1620 v3 is the one to select. If the goal is an efficient, low-power system with integrated graphics and a modern, active platform, the Core i7-6700TE is the appropriate pick. The database records no scenario where the i7-6700TE outperforms the Xeon in computation, but its feature set addresses a different set of priorities. The Xeon is a performance part, and the i7-6700TE is an efficiency part, and the benchmark results reflect that split exactly.