Intel Core i7-9750HF vs Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the database, across all six Cinebench tests. The margins are tight but uniform, hovering between 7.3% and 7.5% in every discipline. This consistency suggests a fundamental architectural advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk.

In Cinebench R15, the Xeon scores 942 in multi-core against the Core i7-9750HF’s 876, a 7.5% lead. The single-core result follows the same pattern: 132 versus 123, a 7.3% margin. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon again leads with 3926 multi-core versus 3652, and 553 single-core versus 515. The deltas remain at 7.5% and 7.4% respectively. Cinebench R23 shows the Xeon at 9348 multi-core and 1319 single-core, versus the Core i7’s 8696 and 1227, with the same 7.5% gap in both tests.

What is striking here is that the Core i7-9750HF has a significantly higher boost clock, 4.50 GHz versus the Xeon’s 3.40 GHz. Yet the Xeon still wins single-core tests by over 7%. The database does not break down per-core frequencies under load, so the measured clock advantage may not translate directly into sustained performance. Still, the data implies that the Xeon’s older Haswell architecture, at a 22 nm node, delivers better single-threaded efficiency in these specific Cinebench workloads than the newer 14 nm Coffee Lake part.

The multi-core results are less surprising given the core count difference: the Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i7 has 6 cores and 12 threads. The Xeon’s 7.5% multi-core lead across all three Cinebench versions is smaller than the 33% core count advantage might suggest, indicating that the Core i7’s higher boost clock helps it close some of the gap in heavily threaded workloads. Still, the Xeon never loses.

The Core i7 does appear in the database with two additional Geekbench scores that the Xeon lacks: 4844 multi-core and 1365 single-core. These are not directly comparable because no corresponding Geekbench result exists for the Xeon in the head-to-head table. The absence of a matching test makes it impossible to say whether the Core i7 would have won there, but the Cinebench pattern is unambiguous.

Average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The Xeon’s average across all recorded benchmarks is 2703, while the Core i7’s is 2662. That is a 1.5% difference in the Xeon’s favor when considering the broader benchmark set, even though the Core i7 has two additional Geekbench tests pulling its average upward. The percentile rankings are identical: both sit at the 50th percentile of all CPUs in the database. This means that despite the Xeon winning every direct comparison, the two processors occupy the same overall performance tier.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each processor adds context. The Xeon’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-1185G7E at an identical 2703 average score, a 0% delta. The Core i7-8700T sits at 2701, just 0.1% behind, and the Core i5-1345UE at 2698 is 0.2% behind. On the other side, the Xeon E-2226G scores 2709, which is 0.2% ahead of the Xeon. For the Core i7-9750HF, its nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E5-4650 v3 at 2664, a 0.1% gap. The Core i7-9700T at 2668 is 0.2% ahead, and the Core i5-9500F at 2670 is 0.3% ahead. The Core i7-7740X at 2648 trails by 0.5%. These neighboring scores reinforce that both processors are mid-pack performers in the current database, with the Xeon holding a slim edge.

The Verdict

The data points to a straightforward conclusion: the Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 is the faster processor in every measurable Cinebench scenario. It wins all six head-to-head tests, holds a higher average benchmark score, and does so despite being from an older generation and a larger manufacturing node. The Core i7-9750HF never takes a single win in the head-to-head table.

Who should pick the Xeon? Anyone prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput in Cinebench-style rendering workloads. The Xeon’s 8 cores and 16 threads, combined with a 20 MB shared L3 cache and quad-channel DDR4 memory support, make it the stronger candidate for server or workstation tasks that scale with core count and memory bandwidth. Its 90 W TDP is higher than the Core i7’s 45 W, but that is the expected trade-off for a socketed server part.

Who should pick the Core i7? The data does not justify a performance-based choice, but the Core i7 has other attributes that matter outside of pure benchmark scores. It is a mobile processor on the Intel BGA 1440 socket, designed for laptops and compact systems where the Xeon’s desktop socket 2011-3 cannot physically fit. Its 45 W TDP is half the Xeon’s, which implies lower power draw and easier cooling in constrained chassis. The database does not include power consumption measurements, so this cannot be quantified, but the TDP figures are part of the recorded specifications. The Core i7 also has a higher boost clock at 4.50 GHz, which may translate to better responsiveness in lightly threaded tasks that do not show up in these specific Cinebench tests. Still, the Cinebench single-core results contradict that assumption, so the practical benefit remains unproven in the recorded data.

For a user building a new system today, both parts are end-of-life. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $939, and the Core i7 has no recorded launch MSRP. Neither processor is a current-generation product. From a purely performance standpoint, the Xeon is the winner. From a platform standpoint, the Core i7 is the only option for mobile form factors. The data cannot settle a platform preference, but it does settle the benchmark question.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel eras. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 uses the Haswell architecture, specifically the Haswell-EP codename, built on a 22 nm process node. The Core i7-9750HF uses the Coffee Lake architecture, specifically Coffee Lake-HR, built on a 14 nm node. Both are Intel products, but the fabrication process differs by one full node generation.

The core counts diverge significantly. The Xeon has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Core i7 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Both use a 64 KB L1 cache per core and a 256 KB L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache differs: the Xeon has 20 MB shared, the Core i7 has 12 MB shared. The Xeon’s larger cache likely contributes to its multi-core advantage in Cinebench, as more data can reside closer to the cores.

Memory support also differs. Both support DDR4 memory, but the Xeon uses a quad-channel memory bus with a recorded bandwidth of 59.7 GB/s, while the Core i7 uses a dual-channel bus at 42.7 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, while the Core i7 does not. For server or workstation workloads that depend on memory integrity and bandwidth, the Xeon’s ECC support and wider memory bus are meaningful architectural advantages.

The Xeon is built on a 356 mm² die with 2,600 million transistors, while the Core i7 uses a much smaller 149 mm² die. The transistor count for the Core i7 is not recorded in the database. The Xeon’s larger die reflects its server-oriented design with additional cores and cache. The Core i7’s smaller die is consistent with a mobile-focused, lower-power part.

PCI Express support differs as well. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU, while the Core i7 provides Gen 3 without a recorded lane count. The Xeon’s 40 lanes are a substantial advantage for workstation expansion, allowing more GPUs, NVMe drives, or other add-in cards. The Core i7’s PCIe configuration is not specified beyond the generation.

The Xeon targets the server and workstation market segment, while the Core i7 targets mobile. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 2011-3, a large socketed platform, while the Core i7 uses Intel BGA 1440, a ball-grid array soldered directly to the motherboard. This is a fundamental physical difference: the Xeon can be upgraded or replaced in a compatible motherboard, while the Core i7 is permanently attached. The Xeon’s TDP is 90 W, double the Core i7’s 45 W. The release dates reflect the generational gap: the Xeon launched in September 2014, the Core i7 in April 2019.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 has 8 cores and 16 threads, while the Intel Core i7-9750HF has 6 cores and 12 threads.

Q: Did the Core i7-9750HF win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison?

A: No. The Xeon E5-2640 v3 won all six Cinebench tests, with margins between 7.3% and 7.5%.

Q: Does the Xeon support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5-2640 v3 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-9750HF does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference?

A: The Xeon has a quad-channel memory bus with 59.7 GB/s bandwidth, while the Core i7 has a dual-channel bus with 42.7 GB/s bandwidth.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. The database lists both as end-of-life products.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 2703, while the Core i7 has an average of 2662. Both are at the 50th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5-2640 v3 wins in every recorded Cinebench workload. Multi-core rendering, single-core rendering, all three Cinebench versions: the Xeon takes the top spot. The largest margins are 7.5% in R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core. The R15 single-core margin is 7.3%, and R20 single-core is 7.4%. For any workload that resembles Cinebench’s rendering engine, the Xeon is the stronger part.

The Core i7-9750HF has no recorded wins in the head-to-head table. Its case rests on non-benchmark attributes. It is a mobile processor with a 45 W TDP, making it suitable for laptops and compact systems where the Xeon’s 90 W TDP and socket 2011-3 platform would be impractical. Its 4.50 GHz boost clock is the highest clock speed between the two, though the single-core benchmark results do not reflect this as an actual performance win. The Core i7 also has two recorded Geekbench scores, 4844 multi-core and 1365 single-core, but the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench result, so no comparison is possible.

In practical terms, the Xeon wins for server and workstation builds that need ECC memory, quad-channel bandwidth, 40 PCIe Gen 3 lanes, and 8 cores. The Core i7 wins for mobile systems that need a lower TDP and a BGA 1440 form factor. The data does not show any performance scenario where the Core i7 beats the Xeon.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5-2640 v3 | Intel Core i7-9750HF |

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

| Cores | 8 | 6 |

| Threads | 16 | 12 |

| Boost Clock | 3.40 GHz | 4.50 GHz |

| TDP | 90 W | 45 W |

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

| Architecture | Haswell | Coffee Lake |

| Codename | Haswell-EP | Coffee Lake-HR |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 14 nm |

| Die Size | 356 mm² | 149 mm² |

| Transistors | 2,600 million | Not recorded |

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

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

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

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 40 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 3 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Launch MSRP | $939 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SR205 | SRG1T |

| Release Date | September 2014 | April 2019 |

The base clocks are identical at 2.60 GHz for both processors. The L1 and L2 caches match at 64 KB and 256 KB per core respectively. Both support DDR4 memory, both lack integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. Both are end-of-life products. The Xeon’s transistor count is recorded at 2,600 million, while the Core i7’s is not. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $939, while the Core i7 has no recorded launch MSRP.