Intel Core i7-8700B vs Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-8700B and Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 are both end-of-life desktop and workstation processors, respectively, that land within 0.1% of each other in average benchmark score (3086 vs 3082). Despite this near-identical overall performance, the two chips achieve it through very different architectures and feature sets, making the choice between them highly workload-dependent. The data shows a clear split: the Xeon wins every single compute benchmark in the head-to-head comparisons, while the Core i7 counters with a dramatically lower power envelope and a newer process node. This analysis breaks down the benchmark deltas, architectural chasms, and the specific use cases where each processor’s strengths become decisive.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon E5-1660 v3 sweeps all six head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 1074 against the Core i7’s 1005, a 6.4% advantage. The single-core R15 result follows the same pattern: 151 for the Xeon versus 141 for the Core i7, a 6.6% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon again wins multicore with 4475 versus 4190 (6.4% ahead) and single-core with 631 versus 591 (6.3% ahead). The R23 tests repeat the trend exactly: the Xeon posts 10656 in multicore against 9977 for the Core i7, and 1504 in single-core against 1408 — both 6.4% margins.

What stands out is the consistency of the delta. Across every test, the Xeon’s advantage hovers between 6.3% and 6.6%, suggesting a fundamental throughput edge rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Xeon accomplishes this with a lower boost clock of 3.50 GHz versus the Core i7’s 4.60 GHz, meaning it wins through sheer core count and cache capacity. The Core i7 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Xeon brings 8 cores and 16 threads to the table. In single-threaded tests, the Xeon’s 3.50 GHz boost still outpaces the Core i7’s 4.60 GHz boost, which is notable — the per-core efficiency of the newer Coffee Lake architecture cannot fully offset the Xeon’s additional two physical cores and larger shared cache.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story with an even tighter margin. The Core i7-8700B averages 3086 across all its tested workloads, while the Xeon E5-1660 v3 averages 3082. The deltaPct between them is just 0.1%, placing them as direct rivals. The Core i7’s nearest rival list includes the Xeon W-2133 (3087, 0% delta) and the Core i7-6850K (3079, 0.2% delta), while the Xeon’s list includes the Ryzen 7 1800X (3068, 0.4% delta). Both processors sit at the 52nd percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers in the broader market. The benchmark data shows that for pure compute, the Xeon is consistently, if modestly, superior in every measured test.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational. The Core i7-8700B is built on Intel’s 14 nm process node, while the Xeon E5-1660 v3 uses the older 22 nm node. This node difference manifests directly in power consumption: the Core i7 has a TDP of 65 watts, whereas the Xeon draws 140 watts — more than double. The Core i7 also has a much smaller die at 154 mm², compared to the Xeon’s 356 mm² die, which contains 2,600 million transistors. The Xeon’s larger die and older process explain its higher power draw, but they also enable its additional cores and cache.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The Core i7 offers 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with 12 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon matches the per-core L1 and L2 sizes but provides 20 MB of shared L3 cache — 66% more L3. This larger cache pool is critical for the Xeon’s multicore wins, as it reduces memory latency for the two extra cores. Both processors support DDR4 memory, but the memory channels diverge: the Core i7 runs dual-channel with a maximum bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s, while the Xeon runs quad-channel with 68.3 GB/s. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth advantage is substantial, though it also supports ECC memory (the Core i7 does not).

Platform features separate the two even further. The Core i7 uses an Intel BGA 1440 socket, meaning it is soldered to the board, while the Xeon uses the socketed Intel Socket 2011-3. The Core i7 includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all, requiring a discrete GPU. PCIe lane counts also differ: the Core i7 provides 16 CPU-attached PCIe Gen 3 lanes, while the Xeon offers 40 lanes. The Xeon’s multiplier is unlocked, allowing overclocking, while the Core i7’s multiplier is locked. The release dates are years apart — the Core i7 launched on 2018-04-02, while the Xeon launched on 2014-09-07 — reflecting the generational divide in process technology and platform design.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data points to a clear use-case split. The Xeon E5-1660 v3 wins every compute benchmark, making it the superior choice for multi-threaded workloads like video rendering, 3D modeling, and scientific simulations. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, and 20 MB of L3 cache provide a measurable edge in Cinebench tests, which are designed to stress all available cores. The Xeon’s 40 PCIe lanes and quad-channel memory also make it better suited for workstation tasks that require high-bandwidth peripherals, such as multiple GPUs or NVMe storage arrays. The ECC memory support adds reliability for long-running server-style workloads where data integrity is critical.

The Core i7-8700B wins on efficiency and platform simplicity. Its 65-watt TDP makes it far easier to cool and power, which is a decisive factor in compact or passively cooled systems. The integrated UHD Graphics 630 means the Core i7 can operate without a discrete GPU, making it a viable option for basic desktop use, office productivity, or media playback. The newer 14 nm process node gives it a higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which helps in lightly threaded applications where single-core performance matters more than raw core count — though the benchmark data shows the Xeon still wins even in single-core tests. The Core i7’s BGA socket is a drawback for upgradability, but it enables thinner, more integrated designs.

For users who prioritize raw compute throughput, the Xeon is the clear winner — it beats the Core i7 in all six Cinebench tests, from R15 to R23, in both single-core and multicore modes. For users who prioritize power efficiency, integrated graphics, and a modern platform, the Core i7 offers a compelling alternative despite losing every benchmark. The Xeon’s 140-watt TDP and lack of integrated graphics make it unsuitable for compact builds, while the Core i7’s locked multiplier and limited PCIe lanes cap its expandability. The choice ultimately comes down to whether the 6.4% benchmark advantage is worth the doubled power draw and older platform.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-8700B has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Does the Core i7-8700B have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i7-8700B includes UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon E5-1660 v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: How much memory bandwidth does each processor support?

A: The Xeon E5-1660 v3 supports quad-channel DDR4 with a maximum bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s, while the Core i7-8700B supports dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s.

Q: What is the power consumption difference?

A: The Core i7-8700B has a TDP of 65 watts, while the Xeon E5-1660 v3 has a TDP of 140 watts — more than double.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multicore?

A: The Xeon E5-1660 v3 scores 10656, beating the Core i7-8700B’s 9977 by 6.4%.

Q: Does the Xeon E5-1660 v3 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-1660 v3 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-8700B does not.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5-1660 v3 outperforms the Intel Core i7-8700B in every tested workload, with a consistent 6.3% to 6.6% lead across single-core and multicore Cinebench tests. Its 8 cores, 16 threads, 20 MB of L3 cache, quad-channel memory, and 40 PCIe lanes make it the superior choice for compute-heavy workstation tasks, multi-GPU setups, and ECC-reliant server environments. The Xeon’s unlocked multiplier adds overclocking headroom, and its 68.3 GB/s memory bandwidth provides a significant throughput advantage over the Core i7’s 42.7 GB/s.

However, the Core i7-8700B is not without merit. Its 65-watt TDP makes it far more power-efficient, and its integrated UHD Graphics 630 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The newer 14 nm process node and higher 4.60 GHz boost clock offer better per-clock efficiency, even though that does not translate into benchmark wins against the Xeon. The Core i7’s BGA socket and locked multiplier limit its upgrade path, but its lower power draw enables smaller, quieter builds that the 140-watt Xeon could never fit into.

The verdict depends on the user’s priorities. For anyone running multi-threaded workloads — rendering, compiling, data processing — the Xeon E5-1660 v3 is the clear pick, delivering a measurable performance advantage in every benchmark. For users building a compact, power-efficient system where integrated graphics and low heat output are paramount, the Core i7-8700B is the sensible choice, accepting a 6.4% performance deficit in exchange for a dramatic reduction in power draw and platform complexity. The data shows no scenario where the Core i7 wins on raw performance, but it wins decisively on efficiency and integration. Choose the Xeon for maximum compute, the Core i7 for maximum versatility.