Intel Core i7-7820HQ vs Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-7820HQ and the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 are both four-core, eight-thread Intel processors, but they target different segments, with one designed for mobile workstations and the other for server and workstation platforms. The recorded data reveals a consistent performance gap in favor of the Xeon, yet the i7 brings its own set of characteristics that matter for specific use cases. This analysis compares the two based on benchmark results, architectural details, and recorded specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results are unambiguous. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins all six recorded comparisons, with the Core i7-7820HQ trailing by roughly 7.5% to 7.9% in every test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 664 against the i7's 613, a delta of -7.7%. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 93 for the Xeon versus 86 for the i7, a -7.5% difference. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon posts 2770 multi-core and 391 single-core, while the i7 manages 2555 and 360, respectively, with deltas of -7.8% and -7.9%. The Cinebench R23 results continue the trend: the Xeon reaches 6596 multi-core and 931 single-core, against 6084 and 858 for the i7, again a -7.8% gap in both tests.

These deltas are consistent across all workloads, suggesting a systematic advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Xeon's higher base clock of 3.50 GHz compared to the i7's 2.90 GHz likely contributes to this margin, even though the i7 has a higher boost clock at 3.90 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.80 GHz. The benchmark data shows that sustained performance favors the Xeon, while the i7's boost capability does not translate into a win in any recorded test.

The average benchmark score for the i7-7820HQ is 1940, placing it in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon E3-1285 v4 has an average score of 1908, also in the 43rd percentile. Despite the Xeon winning every head-to-head test, the average scores are very close, which indicates that the broader benchmark database includes other workloads where the i7 performs relatively better. The nearest rivals for the i7 include the Intel Core i7-9850HL (average score 1941, delta -0.1%), the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 (1945, -0.2%), and the Intel Core i3-10300 (1934, +0.3%). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 (1907, delta 0%), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910, -0.1%), and the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 (1910, -0.1%). These rival comparisons show that both processors sit in a similar performance tier when averaged across many tests, even though the direct comparison favors the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The architectural differences between these two processors are significant. The Core i7-7820HQ is built on the Kaby Lake architecture, specifically Kaby Lake-H, and uses a 14 nm process node. It has a die size of 126 mm². The Xeon E3-1285 v4 uses the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-DT, also on a 14 nm process, but with a larger die size of 182 mm². Both are manufactured by Intel, but the larger die on the Xeon suggests more integrated components, particularly a more capable graphics unit.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the i7-7820HQ has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. This means the i7 has 2 MB more L3 cache, which could benefit workloads that rely on frequent data reuse. The Xeon compensates with higher clock speeds and a different memory configuration.

Memory support is a major divergence. The i7-7820HQ supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Xeon E3-1285 v4 only supports DDR3, also dual-channel, but the database records a specific memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s for the Xeon. The i7's memory bandwidth is not recorded. ECC memory support is another key difference: the Xeon supports ECC, while the i7 does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting memory environments, which are common in server and workstation applications.

Integrated graphics differ substantially. The i7-7820HQ features Intel HD Graphics 630, while the Xeon E3-1285 v4 includes Intel Iris Pro P6300. The Iris Pro lineup typically offers better graphics performance, which is relevant for workloads that leverage the integrated GPU. The Xeon's larger die size likely accommodates this more advanced graphics engine.

The socket and platform also separate these two. The i7 uses Intel BGA 1440, which is a ball-grid array socket designed for mobile systems, meaning it is soldered to the motherboard. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1150, a land-grid array socket for desktop and workstation motherboards, allowing for a replaceable CPU. This affects upgradeability and system design. The i7 is classified as a mobile processor, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part.

Production statuses are both end-of-life, but release dates differ. The i7 was released in January 2017, while the Xeon was released in June 2015. The launch MSRP for the i7 is $378, and for the Xeon it is $556. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not officially supported.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins every head-to-head comparison. This means that in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both single-core and multi-core, the Xeon outperforms the i7-7820HQ. The deltas are consistent, ranging from -7.5% to -7.9%, indicating a uniform advantage across these rendering and CPU stress tests. For users who prioritize raw computational throughput in such benchmarks, the Xeon is the clear choice.

However, the i7-7820HQ is not without its strengths when considering the broader context. The i7 has a higher boost clock (3.90 GHz versus 3.80 GHz), which could provide short bursts of performance in lightly threaded tasks that are not captured in the recorded benchmarks. The i7 also has more L3 cache (8 MB versus 6 MB), which may benefit certain data-heavy workloads. Additionally, the i7 supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, offering more flexibility in system memory selection, whereas the Xeon is limited to DDR3.

The i7's integrated graphics, Intel HD Graphics 630, is a standard offering, but the Xeon's Intel Iris Pro P6300 is likely more capable for graphics-intensive tasks. For mobile platforms, the i7's lower TDP of 45 watts versus the Xeon's 95 watts makes the i7 far more suitable for laptops and compact systems where power and thermal limits are strict. The Xeon's higher TDP requires more robust cooling and power delivery, which is common in desktop workstations.

The Xeon's ECC memory support is a significant advantage for mission-critical applications where data integrity is paramount. The i7 lacks this feature, making it less suitable for error-sensitive server workloads. The Xeon's dual-channel DDR3 with a recorded bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s provides a defined memory performance level, while the i7's memory bandwidth is not specified.

The Verdict

The data clearly favors the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 in direct benchmark comparisons. It wins all six head-to-head tests with a consistent margin of about 7.5% to 7.9%. This makes the Xeon the better choice for users who prioritize Cinebench-style rendering performance, single-threaded speed, and multi-threaded throughput. The Xeon's ECC memory support and server/workstation market segment also make it suitable for professional environments where reliability and data correctness are critical.

The Core i7-7820HQ, while losing all direct comparisons, is designed for a different purpose. Its mobile socket (BGA 1440), lower TDP of 45 watts, and support for both DDR3 and DDR4 memory make it a viable option for high-performance laptops and mobile workstations. The higher boost clock and larger L3 cache may offer benefits in specific scenarios not fully captured by the Cinebench suite. For users building a mobile system that needs solid CPU performance, the i7 is the appropriate choice.

Neither processor excels in the overall percentile ranking, with both sitting at the 43rd percentile of all CPUs. This indicates that while they are not top-tier performers in the broader market, they are competent mid-range options. The nearest rival comparisons show that both are closely matched with other processors in their performance tier, such as the Intel Core i7-9850HL for the i7 and the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 for the Xeon.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 scores 931, while the Intel Core i7-7820HQ scores 858, a delta of -7.8% favoring the Xeon.

Q: Does the Intel Core i7-7820HQ support ECC memory?

A: No, the i7-7820HQ does not support ECC memory. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 does support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in L3 cache size between the two processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-7820HQ has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 has a base clock of 3.50 GHz, which is higher than the Intel Core i7-7820HQ's base clock of 2.90 GHz.

Q: What memory types does each processor support?

A: The Intel Core i7-7820HQ supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory. The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 only supports DDR3 memory.

Q: How many benchmark wins does each processor have in the head-to-head comparisons?

A: The Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 wins all 6 head-to-head benchmarks. The Intel Core i7-7820HQ wins 0.

Specification Differences

The following table lists the recorded specification fields where the two processors differ.

| Specification | Intel Core i7-7820HQ | Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 |

| --- | --- | --- |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 3.50 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.90 GHz | 3.80 GHz |

| TDP | 45 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | Intel Socket 1150 |

| Architecture | Kaby Lake | Broadwell |

| Codename | Kaby Lake-H | Broadwell-DT |

| Generation | Core i7 (Kaby Lake-H) | Xeon E3 (Broadwell-DT) |

| Die Size | 126 mm² | 182 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 8 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3, DDR4 | DDR3 |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not recorded | 29.9 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD Graphics 630 | Intel Iris Pro P6300 |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2017-01-02 | 2015-06-01 |

| Launch MSRP | $378 | $556 |

| Part Number | SR32N | SR2CX |

Both processors share the same core count (4), thread count (8), process node (14 nm), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), PCIe configuration (Gen 3, 16 Lanes CPU only), and dual-channel memory bus. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The benchmark data shows the Xeon E3-1285 v4 as the faster part in all recorded tests, while the i7-7820HQ offers a lower-power, mobile-friendly package with more cache and flexible memory support.