Intel Core i7-7820HK vs Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 and Intel Core i7-7820HK are both 4-core, 8-thread processors on the Intel BGA 1440 socket, yet they serve different market segments and deliver measurably different performance. Benchmark data shows the Xeon winning all six head-to-head comparisons, with margins consistently around 13% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. The i7-7820HK counters with a lower 45W TDP, an unlocked multiplier, and a 2017 release date, while the Xeon holds the server/workstation positioning with ECC memory support and a higher launch MSRP. This analysis walks through the architectural split, the benchmark deltas, and what the data says about which processor fits which workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-7820HK has a base clock of 2.90 GHz. The boost clocks are identical at 3.90 GHz for both.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Xeon E3-1585 v5 scores 7146 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, versus 6306 for the i7-7820HK. This represents a 13.3% advantage for the Xeon.

Q: Do both CPUs support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E3-1585 v5 has ECC memory support enabled, while the i7-7820HK does not support ECC memory. Both support DDR3 and DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Xeon E3-1585 v5 has an average benchmark score of 2067, compared to 2048 for the i7-7820HK. The Xeon also ranks at the 46th percentile among all CPUs, same as the i7.

Q: Is the i7-7820HK multiplier unlocked?

A: Yes, the i7-7820HK has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking. The Xeon E3-1585 v5 has a locked multiplier, so it cannot be overclocked that way.

Q: What are the integrated graphics on each chip?

A: The Xeon E3-1585 v5 features Iris Pro Graphics P580, while the i7-7820HK features Intel HD Graphics 630. Both are integrated into the respective processors.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E3-1585 v5 is built on the Skylake-H architecture, specifically the Skylake architecture, while the i7-7820HK uses the Kaby Lake-H architecture, based on Kaby Lake. Both are fabricated on Intel's 14 nm process node, but the die sizes differ significantly: the Xeon has a die size of 171 mm² with 2,300 million transistors, whereas the i7-7820HK has a smaller die size of 126 mm² and no transistor count listed in the data. This die size difference suggests the Xeon packs more integrated logic, likely related to its server-oriented features and the more capable Iris Pro Graphics P580.

Both processors share the same core and thread configuration: 4 cores, 8 threads, with identical cache hierarchies — 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The memory support is also identical in terms of types (DDR3, DDR4) and bus width (dual-channel), but the Xeon has a listed memory bandwidth of 34.1 GB/s, while the i7-7820HK has no memory bandwidth figure in the data. Both use PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, and both are on the Intel BGA 1440 socket.

The key architectural differentiators are market segment and feature set. The Xeon E3-1585 v5 is aimed at the server/workstation segment, with ECC memory support and a 65W TDP, while the i7-7820HK is a mobile part with a 45W TDP, no ECC, and an unlocked multiplier for overclocking. The Xeon was released on 2016-05-30, while the i7-7820HK came later on 2017-01-02. The Xeon's part number is SR2RB, and the i7's is SR32P. The production status for both is end-of-life.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins every single one, with deltas ranging from 13.3% to 13.5%. The most consistent pattern is in multi-core workloads: in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 720 versus 635 for the i7-7820HK, a 13.4% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap is 13.3% (3001 vs 2648), and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon leads 7146 to 6306, again 13.3%. These results indicate that the Xeon's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz versus 2.90 GHz provides a sustained advantage when all cores are active, despite both chips boosting to 3.90 GHz.

Single-core performance tells the same story with slightly larger margins. In Cinebench R15 single-core, the Xeon scores 101 versus 89, a 13.5% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon hits 423 versus 373, a 13.4% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon posts 1008 versus 890, a 13.3% advantage. The fact that single-core deltas mirror multi-core deltas suggests the advantage is not from core scaling but from the Xeon's higher base frequency and possibly more efficient Skylake design for these specific workloads.

The i7-7820HK has no wins in this head-to-head set — winsA is 6, winsB is 0. However, the benchmark data includes additional Geekbench scores for the i7-7820HK (multicore 4173, singlecore 1273) that are not available for the Xeon, so those cannot be compared directly. In terms of percentile ranking, both CPUs sit at the 46th percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores are close: 2067 for the Xeon and 2048 for the i7. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the AMD Ryzen 5 3400G (avg score 2059, delta 0.4%) and the Intel Core i7-8705G (avg score 2058, delta 0.5%), while the i7-7820HK's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1270 v5 (2048, 0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 3 3100 (2055, -0.3% delta). This indicates both processors are in the same broad performance tier, but the Xeon edges ahead in Cinebench-specific tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specification fields. The most obvious is architecture: the Xeon uses Skylake, while the i7-7820HK uses Kaby Lake. The base clocks differ, with the Xeon at 3.50 GHz and the i7 at 2.90 GHz, though boost clocks are identical at 3.90 GHz. The TDP also differs, with the Xeon rated at 65W and the i7 at 45W. The die size is different (171 mm² vs 126 mm²), and the transistor count is only listed for the Xeon (2,300 million).

Memory bandwidth is another differing field: the Xeon lists 34.1 GB/s, while the i7-7820HK has no listed value. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but not on the i7. The integrated graphics differ, with the Xeon featuring Iris Pro Graphics P580 and the i7 featuring Intel HD Graphics 630. The market segment differs (Server/Workstation vs Mobile). The release dates are different, with the Xeon launching on 2016-05-30 and the i7 on 2017-01-02. The launch MSRP values differ: the Xeon was listed at $556, while the i7 was listed at $378. The multiplier is unlocked on the i7-7820HK but locked on the Xeon. Part numbers are SR2RB for the Xeon and SR32P for the i7. Fields that are the same include cores (4), threads (8), socket (Intel BGA 1440), process node (14 nm), foundry (Intel), L1/L2/L3 cache sizes, memory support type (DDR3/DDR4), memory bus (dual-channel), and PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 16 Lanes).

The Verdict

Strictly from the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1585 v5 is the faster processor. It wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a consistent 13.3-13.5% lead over the i7-7820HK in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The Xeon's higher base clock (3.50 GHz vs 2.90 GHz) and its server/workstation-oriented design contribute to this performance edge. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and a higher memory bandwidth figure of 34.1 GB/s, which are meaningful for workstation reliability and data-intensive tasks. The trade-off is a higher TDP of 65W versus 45W, and a higher launch MSRP of $556 versus $378.

The i7-7820HK is not without merits. It has an unlocked multiplier, enabling overclocking to potentially close the gap, though the data does not quantify that potential. It also has a lower TDP, making it more suitable for mobile or thermally constrained systems. Its average benchmark score of 2048 is only 0.9% lower than the Xeon's 2067, and both sit at the same 46th percentile. For users who prioritize overclocking headroom and lower power draw, the i7-7820HK is a viable choice. However, for out-of-the-box performance in Cinebench workloads, the Xeon E3-1585 v5 is the clear winner.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E3-1585 v5 wins in every measured Cinebench scenario — R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core. This makes it the better choice for workloads that are heavily reliant on CPU rendering or compute tasks, where every percentage point of performance translates to shorter render times. The Xeon's ECC memory support and 34.1 GB/s memory bandwidth also make it more suitable for workstation environments where data integrity and sustained throughput are critical. Its server/workstation market segment and higher TDP indicate a design intended for always-on, reliability-focused systems.

The i7-7820HK wins in the categories of power efficiency and overclocking flexibility. With a 45W TDP, it draws less power than the Xeon's 65W, which is advantageous in mobile or compact builds. The unlocked multiplier allows users to manually adjust clock speeds, potentially offsetting the Xeon's stock advantage, though the data does not specify by how much. The i7 also has a lower launch MSRP of $378, which may appeal to buyers not needing ECC or the Xeon's specific feature set. For gaming or general mobile use where overclocking is a priority and the Cinebench margin is less critical, the i7-7820HK holds its ground despite losing all direct benchmark comparisons.