Intel Core i7-7700T vs Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-7700T and Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 are both 4-core, 8-thread processors on the Intel Socket 1151 platform, but they target different market segments. The i7-7700T is a low-power desktop part from the Kaby Lake generation, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 is a Skylake-DT server/workstation chip. Benchmark data shows a consistent performance gap, with the Xeon taking all six head-to-head wins across Cinebench versions, though the margin is remarkably uniform.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins every single benchmark in the comparison, but the victory is narrow and consistent. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 707 against the i7-7700T’s 646, a delta of -8.6% from the i7’s perspective. The single-core R15 test tells a similar story: 99 for the Xeon versus 91 for the i7, an -8.1% difference. This pattern holds across newer Cinebench versions. In R20 multicore, the Xeon posts 2948 versus 2692, and in single-core it scores 416 versus 380 — both exactly -8.7% deltas. The R23 results are equally decisive: 7020 against 6410 in multicore, and 991 against 905 in single-core, again at -8.7%.

The consistency of the delta — hovering between -8.1% and -8.7% across all six tests — suggests a fixed structural advantage rather than workload-specific behavior. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz and boost clock of 3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz likely account for most of the gap, since both chips share the same 4-core/8-thread configuration and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The i7-7700T never wins a single benchmark, giving the Xeon a clean 6-0 sweep in winsA versus winsB.

Average benchmark scores corroborate the head-to-head results. The i7-7700T has an average benchmark score of 2039, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 sits slightly lower at 2030. That is counterintuitive given the Xeon’s individual wins, but the average includes Geekbench results for the i7 that are absent for the Xeon. The i7-7700T’s Geekbench multicore score is 3938 and single-core is 1248, which pull its average up. In the pure Cinebench comparison, the Xeon is consistently ahead by roughly 8.5%.

Both processors land at the 45th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers in the broader market. The nearest rivals for the i7-7700T include the AMD Opteron 6386 SE with an average score of 2038 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Core i7-3960X at 2037 (0.1% delta). The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-5775R at 2031 (-0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon E3-1280 v5 at 2029 (0.1% delta). These rivalries show both chips clustered tightly with other mid-range parts, separated by fractions of a percent.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins in every compute-heavy scenario captured by the benchmarks. In multicore workloads — rendering, video encoding, scientific computation — it leads by 8.6% to 8.7% across R15, R20, and R23. The single-core advantage is nearly identical, ranging from 8.1% to 8.7%. This means the Xeon is the better choice for both threaded and lightly-threaded applications. The higher base and boost clocks translate directly into higher throughput per core, and the lack of integrated graphics on the Xeon likely reduces power draw competition for thermal headroom.

The i7-7700T’s only distinguishing data point is its Geekbench scores, where it posts 3938 multicore and 1248 single-core. Since the Xeon has no Geekbench results in the pack, no direct comparison is possible there. However, the i7’s average benchmark score of 2039 is actually higher than the Xeon’s 2030, suggesting that in some mixed workloads — potentially those favoring the i7’s HD 630 integrated graphics or its lower 35 W TDP — the i7 can close the gap. The i7-7700T’s 35 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 80 W TDP makes it dramatically more energy-efficient, which is a win for compact systems, silent builds, or always-on machines where heat and power are the primary constraints.

For users who need ECC memory, the Xeon is the only option, as the i7-7700T does not support ECC. The Xeon also supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, while the i7 is limited to DDR4. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s is lower than the i7’s 38.4 GB/s, which is a notable reversal given the Xeon’s compute advantage. In memory-sensitive workloads, the i7 might actually have the edge, though this is not reflected in the Cinebench results, which are primarily compute-bound.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1240 v5 scores 7020 in Cinebench R23 multicore, which is 8.7% ahead of the Intel Core i7-7700T’s 6410.

Q: Does the i7-7700T win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, covering Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multicore tests.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The i7-7700T has a 35 W TDP, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 has an 80 W TDP. The i7 uses less than half the power budget of the Xeon.

Q: Can the Xeon E3-1240 v5 use the same memory as the i7-7700T?

A: Yes, both support DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration. However, the Xeon also supports DDR3, while the i7-7700T only supports DDR4.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E3-1240 v5 supports ECC memory, while the i7-7700T does not, as indicated by the eCCMemory fields.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-7700T has an average benchmark score of 2039, which is slightly higher than the Xeon E3-1240 v5’s 2030. This is because the i7 includes Geekbench scores in its average, while the Xeon does not.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications. The i7-7700T has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.80 GHz, while the Xeon E3-1240 v5 runs at 3.50 GHz base and 3.90 GHz boost. The TDP difference is substantial: 35 W for the i7 versus 80 W for the Xeon. The i7 is part of the Kaby Lake architecture and generation "Core i7 (Kaby Lake)", while the Xeon uses Skylake architecture with the codename "Skylake-DT" and generation "Xeon E3 (Skylake-DT)". The Xeon has a transistor count of 1,750 million and a die size of 122 mm², while the i7’s transistor count and die size are not listed.

Memory support differs: the i7 only supports DDR4, while the Xeon supports both DDR3 and DDR4. The memory bandwidth is higher on the i7 at 38.4 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s for the Xeon. ECC memory support is exclusive to the Xeon. The i7 includes integrated graphics (HD 630), while the Xeon has no integrated graphics. The i7 targets the desktop market segment and is listed as active in production, while the Xeon targets server/workstation and is end-of-life. The release dates differ, with the Xeon released in October 2015 and the i7 in January 2017. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $282, while the i7 has no listed launch MSRP. Part numbers are SR339 for the i7 and SR2LD for the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s 14 nm process node and share the same Intel Socket 1151 interface. They have identical cache hierarchies: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both use dual-channel memory buses and provide Gen 3 PCIe with 16 CPU lanes. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The core architectural difference lies in the generation and design intent. The i7-7700T is a Kaby Lake part, which is a refinement of the Skylake microarchitecture. The Xeon E3-1240 v5 is Skylake-DT, the desktop variant of Skylake. The Xeon’s transistor count of 1,750 million and die size of 122 mm² are documented, while the i7’s are not, but both are 14 nm parts. The Xeon’s support for ECC memory and DDR3 alongside DDR4 indicates its server-grade validation, whereas the i7’s integrated HD 630 graphics and lower TDP point to consumer desktop usage. The i7’s higher memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s versus 34.1 GB/s for the Xeon is a notable architectural difference, possibly due to memory controller tuning for the lower-power desktop part. The Xeon’s end-of-life production status contrasts with the i7’s active status, reflecting their different lifecycles in the market.