Intel Core i7-9700T vs Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark comparisons in the database?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins all six recorded head-to-head comparisons against the Intel Core i7-9700T. The database shows 6 wins for the Xeon and 0 wins for the Core i7.

Q: What is the performance difference in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test?

A: The Xeon E5-4620 v3 scores 8946 points compared to 8325 points for the Core i7-9700T, a 7.5% advantage for the Xeon in that specific test.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare between these two CPUs?

A: The Xeon E5-4620 v3 leads in every single-core test recorded. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 1263 while the Core i7-9700T scores 1175, a 7.5% difference in favor of the Xeon.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Xeon E5-4620 v3 has 10 cores and 20 threads, while the Core i7-9700T has 8 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon offers double the threads per core count.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core i7-9700T has an average benchmark score of 2668, while the Xeon E5-4620 v3 has an average score of 2587. This places the Core i7 slightly higher in the overall database percentile at 50 versus 49 for the Xeon.

Q: What are the power consumption ratings for these CPUs?

A: The Xeon E5-4620 v3 has a TDP of 105 watts, while the Core i7-9700T has a TDP of 35 watts. The Core i7 uses significantly less power according to the recorded specifications.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 and Intel Core i7-9700T come from different architectural generations and target different market segments. The Xeon uses the Haswell architecture (specifically Haswell-EP) built on a 22 nm process node, while the Core i7 uses the Coffee Lake architecture (specifically Coffee Lake Refresh) on a 14 nm process node. This generational gap is significant: the Xeon belongs to the server/workstation family, whereas the Core i7 is a desktop part.

The transistor count and die size differ substantially. The Xeon E5-4620 v3 integrates 2,600 million transistors across a 356 mm² die, while the Core i7-9700T has a smaller 180.3 mm² die with no transistor count recorded in the database. The larger die and transistor budget for the Xeon reflect its server-oriented design with more cores and cache.

Cache hierarchies also differ. Both CPUs share the same L1 cache size of 64 KB per core and L2 cache of 256 KB per core. However, the Xeon has a much larger L3 cache at 25 MB shared, compared to 12 MB shared on the Core i7. This 13 MB difference in L3 cache can impact workloads that benefit from larger pooled cache.

Memory support is another major architectural divergence. Both support DDR4 memory, but the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus with a peak bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Core i7 uses a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the Core i7 does not. The PCIe lane allocation also differs dramatically: the Xeon provides 40 Gen 3 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7 provides 16 Gen 3 lanes.

The Core i7-9700T includes integrated UHD Graphics 630, while the Xeon E5-4620 v3 has no integrated graphics recorded. The Core i7 has a much higher boost clock at 4.30 GHz versus 2.60 GHz on the Xeon, though both share the same 2000.00 MHz base clock.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head results show a consistent pattern: the Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins every benchmark test, but by a relatively narrow margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 901 versus 839 for the Core i7, a 7.4% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows a similar gap at 127 versus 118, a 7.6% lead for the Xeon.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the multi-core scores are 3757 for the Xeon and 3496 for the Core i7, which translates to a 7.5% difference. The single-core R20 results show 530 versus 493, again a 7.5% gap. These consistent percentages across different Cinebench versions suggest a stable performance relationship between the two processors under this workload family.

The Cinebench R23 tests reinforce the pattern. Multi-core results show 8946 for the Xeon versus 8325 for the Core i7, a 7.5% margin. Single-core R23 scores are 1263 and 1175 respectively, with the Xeon ahead by 7.5%. Notably, the Core i7 has additional Geekbench scores recorded in the database (5503 multi-core and 1392 single-core), but the Xeon does not have matching Geekbench results, so those cannot be compared directly.

Despite the Xeon winning all six head-to-head tests, the average benchmark score in the database tells a different story for overall positioning. The Core i7-9700T has an average score of 2668, which places it at the 50th percentile among all CPUs, while the Xeon has an average score of 2587 at the 49th percentile. This apparent contradiction arises because the Xeon's benchmark suite includes only Cinebench tests, while the Core i7 includes Geekbench results that may boost its average.

The Verdict

The data paints a clear picture for users who prioritize Cinebench-style rendering workloads: the Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 outperforms the Intel Core i7-9700T across every recorded multi-core and single-core test. The margins are consistent, hovering around 7.5% in most tests. However, the overall database percentile suggests the Core i7 has a slightly higher average standing when all recorded benchmarks are considered.

For users building a system around Cinebench rendering or similar CPU-intensive tasks, the Xeon E5-4620 v3 is the better choice based on the recorded data. It provides more cores (10 vs 8), more threads (20 vs 8), and a larger L3 cache (25 MB vs 12 MB), all of which contribute to its benchmark wins.

The Core i7-9700T, despite losing all head-to-head tests, offers a substantially lower TDP of 35 watts versus 105 watts for the Xeon. This makes it a more power-efficient option for desktop builds where thermal and power budgets are constrained. The Core i7 also includes integrated graphics and fits a more common desktop socket.

The choice ultimately depends on workload priorities. The Xeon wins in pure compute performance for threaded workloads, while the Core i7 offers efficiency and a more conventional desktop feature set. The Xeon requires a server-grade platform with quad-channel memory and ECC support, while the Core i7 uses a standard desktop platform.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification category. The core count differs by 2 cores (10 vs 8), and the thread count differs dramatically (20 vs 8). Both share a base clock of 2000.00 MHz, but the boost clocks diverge significantly: the Xeon boosts to 2.60 GHz while the Core i7 boosts to 4.30 GHz.

The TDP ratings show a 70-watt difference, with the Xeon at 105 watts and the Core i7 at 35 watts. The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the Core i7 uses Intel Socket 1151. The process nodes differ by one generation step, with the Xeon on 22 nm and the Core i7 on 14 nm.

The L3 cache differs by 13 MB, with the Xeon carrying 25 MB and the Core i7 carrying 12 MB. Memory bus width differs, with the Xeon supporting quad-channel and the Core i7 supporting dual-channel. Peak memory bandwidth is 59.7 GB/s for the Xeon versus 42.7 GB/s for the Core i7. ECC memory support is present only on the Xeon.

PCIe lane counts differ by 24 lanes, with the Xeon offering 40 Gen 3 lanes and the Core i7 offering 16 Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the Core i7 includes UHD Graphics 630. The Xeon targets the server/workstation market segment, while the Core i7 targets desktop. Release dates differ by roughly four years: the Xeon launched in May 2015 and the Core i7 in April 2019. The part numbers also differ (SR22K for the Xeon, SRG17 for the Core i7).

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5-4620 v3 wins in every head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database. Its advantages are most pronounced in multi-core rendering workloads, where the combination of 20 threads and 25 MB of L3 cache provides measurable gains. The Xeon also wins in single-core tests, which is notable given its much lower boost clock of 2.60 GHz versus 4.30 GHz on the Core i7. This suggests the Haswell architecture's performance per clock, combined with the larger cache, offsets the clock speed disadvantage in the tested workloads.

The Xeon also wins in platform-level capabilities: quad-channel memory with higher bandwidth, ECC support, and 40 PCIe lanes make it suited for server and workstation applications where memory capacity, reliability, and expansion are critical. The recorded 59.7 GB/s memory bandwidth versus 42.7 GB/s on the Core i7 supports this positioning.

The Intel Core i7-9700T wins in efficiency and platform flexibility. Its 35 watt TDP is one-third of the Xeon's 105 watt rating, making it suitable for compact or low-power desktop builds. The integrated UHD Graphics 630 eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic systems. The dual-channel memory configuration, while lower bandwidth, is standard for desktop platforms and reduces motherboard cost and complexity.

The Core i7 also holds a slight edge in the overall database average benchmark score (2668 vs 2587) and percentile ranking (50 vs 49), though this includes Geekbench results that the Xeon lacks. For users focused on general desktop tasks, light productivity, or systems where power consumption is a primary concern, the Core i7-9700T is the better fit. For users running threaded rendering workloads or needing server-grade features, the Xeon E5-4620 v3 is the stronger choice based on the recorded data.