Intel Core i7-7820HQ vs Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 Comparison

The recorded data tells a surprisingly one-sided story: the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3, a 2014 server part, wins every single Cinebench test against the newer Intel Core i7-7820HQ, a 2017 mobile chip, by a consistent margin of roughly 8 percent in both single-core and multi-core runs. Both processors land in the 43rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, with nearly identical average benchmark scores of 1907 and 1940, which confirms they occupy the same overall performance tier despite very different designs.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster overall, the Xeon E5-2620 v3 or the Core i7-7820HQ?

A: The Xeon E5-2620 v3 wins all six head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 8.1 to 8.6 percent. It wins single-core and multi-core equally, so the i7-7820HQ takes no category.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: They are almost tied. The Xeon sits at an average of 1907 while the Core i7-7820HQ averages 1940, and both sit in the 43rd percentile versus all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which chip has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon E5-2620 v3 offers 6 cores and 12 threads. The Core i7-7820HQ provides 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which CPU has the higher clock speeds?

A: The Core i7-7820HQ, with a 2.90 base and 3.90 boost clock, versus 2.40 base and 3.20 boost on the Xeon. Despite that clock advantage, the recorded benchmark data still favors the Xeon.

Q: Do these CPUs support ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E5-2620 v3 supports ECC. The Core i7-7820HQ does not. The Xeon also uses a quad-channel DDR4 bus with 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, while the i7 supports DDR3 or DDR4 on a dual-channel bus.

Q: Which one has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i7-7820HQ includes Intel HD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-2620 v3 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU.

The Verdict

The Xeon E5-2620 v3 is the outright performance pick by the numbers: six head-to-head wins, zero losses, and a uniform advantage of roughly 8 percent across every Cinebench generation in the database. The Core i7-7820HQ's case rests entirely on platform attributes rather than throughput. It draws 45 W against the Xeon's 85 W, ships with integrated graphics, and supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory, making it the practical choice where power efficiency or a self-contained mobile platform matters more than raw rendering speed.

Context matters here. The Xeon is a Socket 2011-3 server and workstation part with a launch MSRP of $417, while the i7-7820HQ is a BGA 1440 soldered mobile chip with a launch MSRP of $378. They were never direct competitors, and the benchmark data reflects different design goals: the Xeon prioritizes sustained throughput and platform capability, the i7 prioritizes efficiency inside a laptop. For anyone choosing purely on recorded performance, the verdict is unambiguous in the Xeon's favor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon sweeps every test, and the margins are remarkably uniform, which suggests a structural advantage rather than a workload-specific one.

• Cinebench R15 multi-core: Xeon 664 vs 613, an 8.3 percent win.
• Cinebench R15 single-core: Xeon 93 vs 86, an 8.1 percent win.
• Cinebench R20 multi-core: Xeon 2769 vs 2555, an 8.4 percent win.
• Cinebench R20 single-core: Xeon 391 vs 360, an 8.6 percent win.
• Cinebench R23 multi-core: Xeon 6595 vs 6084, an 8.4 percent win.
• Cinebench R23 single-core: Xeon 931 vs 858, an 8.5 percent win.

The single-core result is the most interesting. The i7-7820HQ boosts to 3.90 against the Xeon's 3.20, yet still trails by more than 8 percent in every single-core run. The database also holds Geekbench results for the i7-7820HQ alone (1215 single-core, 3748 multi-core), so the head-to-head comparison rests on the Cinebench suite, where the outcome is total: six wins for the Xeon, none for the i7.

Against the wider field, both CPUs sit in an identical percentile band. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1285 v4 (average score 1908, delta 0 percent), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 2400GE (1910, minus 0.2 percent), the Intel Xeon E3-1575M v5 (1910, minus 0.2 percent), and the Intel Core i3-9100F (1903, plus 0.2 percent). The i7-7820HQ clusters with the Intel Core i7-9850HL (1941, minus 0.1 percent), the Intel Xeon E3-1535M v5 (1945, minus 0.2 percent), the Intel Core i3-10300 (1934, plus 0.3 percent), and the Intel Xeon E3-1230 v5 (1947, minus 0.4 percent). In short, both chips trade blows with the same class of hardware.

Specification Differences

The two parts differ on nearly every specification that matters:

• Cores and threads: 6 cores, 12 threads on the Xeon versus 4 cores, 8 threads on the i7.
• Clocks: 2.40 base and 3.20 boost on the Xeon versus 2.90 base and 3.90 boost on the i7.
• TDP: 85 W on the Xeon versus 45 W on the i7.
• Socket: Intel Socket 2011-3 versus Intel BGA 1440, the latter being soldered and non-replaceable in practice.
• Process node: 22 nm versus 14 nm.
• Cache: 15 MB shared L3 on the Xeon versus 8 MB shared L3 on the i7. Both carry 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core.
• Memory: quad-channel DDR4 at 59.7 GB/s with ECC support on the Xeon versus dual-channel DDR3/DDR4 without ECC on the i7.
• PCIe: 40 Gen 3 lanes on the Xeon versus 16 Gen 3 lanes on the i7.
• Graphics: none on the Xeon versus Intel HD Graphics 630 on the i7.
• Release date: the Xeon launched in 2014, the i7 in 2017. Both are now end-of-life.
• Die size: 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors on the Xeon versus 126 mm² on the i7.
• Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5-2620 v3 is built on Intel's Haswell-EP design, specifically the Haswell-EP codename for the Xeon E5 generation, on a 22 nm Intel process. The Core i7-7820HQ uses the Kaby Lake-H codename within the Kaby Lake architecture, manufactured on Intel's refined 14 nm process. Three years and two process generations separate them, which explains the i7's much smaller 126 mm² die against the Xeon's 356 mm² server-class silicon packed with 2,600 million transistors.

Their roles shaped the architecture. The Xeon carries server and workstation features: ECC memory support, a quad-channel DDR4 memory controller delivering 59.7 GB/s of bandwidth, and 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes for add-in cards and storage. Its six cores and 15 MB of shared L3 cache are designed for sustained parallel workloads. The i7-7820HQ is a mobile design that spends its transistor budget differently, integrating Intel HD Graphics 630 on-package and running within a 45 W envelope. It supports both DDR3 and DDR4 memory on a dual-channel bus, a flexibility that reflects its laptop-oriented market, and it carries 16 PCIe Gen 3 lanes.

The per-core cache hierarchy is identical between the two, 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, so the architectural gap is really about core count, L3 capacity, memory subsystem width, and the presence of integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2620 v3 wins every performance scenario the database records. It is ahead by 8.4 percent in Cinebench R23 multi-core, 8.3 percent in R15 multi-core, and 8.4 percent in R20 multi-core, which makes it the pick for rendering, batch processing, and any throughput-sensitive workload. It also leads every single-core test by 8.1 to 8.6 percent, remarkable given its lower boost clock, so lightly threaded software runs faster on it too. Add ECC support, quad-channel memory bandwidth, and 40 PCIe lanes, and the Xeon covers workstation and server duty that the i7 simply cannot address.

The Core i7-7820HQ wins where the Xeon has no answer at all. Its 45 W TDP is roughly half the Xeon's 85 W, it includes Intel HD Graphics 630 so it can drive displays without a discrete GPU, and its soldered BGA 1440 package fits mobile platforms the Socket 2011-3 Xeon was never intended for. Its DDR3 and DDR4 flexibility suits the mixed memory ecosystems of its era. For a laptop, thin client, or power-constrained system, the i7-7820HQ is the only viable option of the two, and it does so while sitting in the same 43rd percentile performance band, close enough that its modest deficit in the recorded benchmarks is the price of a mobile existence rather than a meaningful performance gap.