Intel Core i7-8700B vs Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-8700B and Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 are closely matched in aggregate performance, with average benchmark scores of 3086 and 3066, respectively. However, the head-to-head data is decisively one-sided: the Xeon E5-2618L v3 wins all six benchmark comparisons, though by a narrow margin of roughly 6% in each test. The Core i7-8700B counters with a much higher boost clock (4.60 GHz vs 3.40 GHz), a newer 14 nm process, and a smaller 154 mm² die, but the Xeon’s extra two cores and 8 MB of additional L3 cache prove more impactful in sustained workloads. Both chips sit at the 52nd percentile among all CPUs, placing them in the same performance tier despite their architectural differences.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2618L v3 is the clear winner in every benchmark category recorded, making it the superior choice for multi-threaded and even single-threaded rendering tasks. Its advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core (10601 vs 9977) and single-core (1496 vs 1408) shows that the older Haswell architecture, with eight cores and sixteen threads, outperforms the Coffee Lake chip across the board. The Xeon’s quad-channel memory bus, delivering 59.7 GB/s versus the i7’s 42.7 GB/s, also gives it a bandwidth edge that favors memory-intensive server or workstation workloads.

The Core i7-8700B’s wins are not in benchmark scores but in platform characteristics. It features integrated UHD Graphics 630, which the Xeon lacks entirely, making it a viable option for systems that need a display output without a discrete GPU. Its 65 W TDP is lower than the Xeon’s 75 W, and it uses the compact Intel BGA 1440 socket, whereas the Xeon requires the larger Intel Socket 2011-3. The i7 also has a significantly higher boost clock of 4.60 GHz, which could theoretically favor bursty, lightly threaded tasks, but the data shows the Xeon still wins the single-core Cinebench tests, indicating that clock speed alone does not overcome the architectural efficiency of the Xeon’s design.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design philosophies and eras. The Core i7-8700B is a Coffee Lake part, built on Intel’s 14 nm process with a die size of 154 mm². It packs six cores and twelve threads, with a base clock of 3.20 GHz and a boost clock of 4.60 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, plus 12 MB of shared L3 cache. Memory support is dual-channel DDR4 with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth, and it does not support ECC memory. The chip is classified as a desktop segment product with a part number SRCX2 and is now end-of-life, having launched in April 2018.

The Xeon E5-2618L v3 is a Haswell-EP server/workstation part, fabricated on a larger 22 nm process with a die size of 356 mm² and 2,600 million transistors. It offers eight cores and sixteen threads, but its base clock drops to 2.30 GHz and boost to 3.40 GHz. The L3 cache is substantially larger at 20 MB shared, with the same 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. It supports quad-channel DDR4 memory, yielding 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, and crucially supports ECC memory, which is essential for error-correcting workloads in servers. It has 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes from the CPU, compared to the i7’s 16 lanes, and it remains in active production, having debuted in September 2014 with part number SR200.

These differences explain the benchmark outcomes. The Xeon’s eight cores and larger cache provide more raw parallel throughput, while its quad-channel memory subsystem reduces bottlenecks in data-heavy tasks. The i7’s higher clocks and smaller process node offer efficiency and integration, but they do not translate into a performance win in the recorded tests.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are consistent and unambiguous. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1068 against the i7’s 1005, a delta of -5.9% for the i7. The single-core R15 test shows a similar pattern: 150 for the Xeon versus 141 for the i7, a 6% gap. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon again leads in multi-core with 4452 versus 4190, and in single-core with 628 versus 591, both at -5.9% deltas. The R23 results mirror this exactly: multi-core is 10601 for the Xeon against 9977 for the i7, and single-core is 1496 versus 1408, with the same -5.9% delta.

The narrowness of the margins is striking. Despite the Xeon’s lower clock speeds, it manages to beat the i7 in every test by nearly the same percentage, suggesting a consistent architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The i7’s Geekbench scores, which are not included in the head-to-head set, show a multi-core score of 5936 and single-core of 1443, but the Xeon does not have corresponding Geekbench entries in the data, so a direct comparison there is not possible. What the head-to-head data does show is that the Xeon’s extra cores and memory bandwidth overcome the i7’s clock speed deficit in both multi-threaded and single-threaded Cinebench workloads.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 is the better performer in every benchmark category recorded, making it the preferred choice for users who prioritize raw rendering performance. Its wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, are consistent and repeatable, with a 5.9% to 6% advantage over the Core i7-8700B. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support, quad-channel bandwidth, and 40 PCIe lanes, which are critical for server or workstation reliability and expansion. Its active production status and 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die indicate a robust, enterprise-focused design.

The Core i7-8700B, however, is not without merit. It is the only one of the two with integrated graphics, which simplifies system builds that do not require a discrete GPU. Its lower 65 W TDP and smaller 154 mm² die suggest better power efficiency per unit area, and its 4.60 GHz boost clock could appeal to users who value high single-thread responsiveness, even if the benchmarks do not reflect an advantage. It is also an end-of-life desktop part, which may be relevant for legacy system repairs or specific embedded applications. For anyone choosing strictly on benchmark scores, the Xeon is the winner. For those needing an iGPU or a lower-power, compact solution, the i7-8700B is the logical pick despite its performance deficit.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2618L 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, whereas the Xeon E5-2618L v3 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 offers 59.7 GB/s via quad-channel memory, while the Core i7-8700B provides 42.7 GB/s via dual-channel memory.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 supports ECC memory; the Core i7-8700B does not.

Q: How much larger is the Xeon’s L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5-2618L v3 has 20 MB of shared L3 cache, compared to 12 MB on the Core i7-8700B.

Q: In which benchmark does the Core i7-8700B win?

A: The Core i7-8700B does not win any of the six head-to-head benchmarks; the Xeon E5-2618L v3 wins all of them.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-8700B | Intel Xeon E5-2618L v3 |

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

| Cores | 6 | 8 |

| Threads | 12 | 16 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.30 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 4.60 GHz | 3.40 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 75 W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1440 | Intel Socket 2011-3 |

| Architecture | Coffee Lake | Haswell |

| Codename | Coffee Lake | Haswell-EP |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 154 mm² | 356 mm² |

| Transistors | Not listed | 2,600 million |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 20 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Quad-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | 42.7 GB/s | 59.7 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe Lanes | 16 (Gen 3) | 40 (Gen 3) |

| Integrated Graphics | UHD Graphics 630 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2018-04-02 | 2014-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | $303 | $779 |

| Part Number | SRCX2 | SR200 |