Intel Core i7-980 vs Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 and the Intel Core i7-980 are two end-of-life processors from different eras of Intel’s lineup, and the benchmark data shows a surprisingly consistent, if narrow, victory for the newer Xeon. Across every single Cinebench test, the Xeon E3-1265L v4 takes the win, but the margins are razor-thin. In multi-core R15, the Xeon scores 595 against the i7-980’s 589, a 1% lead. Single-core R15 sees the Xeon at 84 versus 83, a 1.2% edge. The pattern holds in R20, with the Xeon posting 2482 to the i7’s 2458 (1% delta), and in single-core R20, 350 to 346 (1.2%). Even in R23, the most demanding test, the Xeon’s 5910 beats the i7’s 5853 by exactly 1%, and single-core R23 is 834 versus 826, again a 1% difference. The Xeon wins all six head-to-head benchmarks, but no single test shows a lead larger than 1.2%. This is not a generational stomping; it is a consistent, marginal superiority that favors the newer architecture.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the i7-980, despite having two more cores and four more threads, cannot outrun the Xeon in any multi-threaded workload. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon’s 595 barely edges out the i7’s 589. By R20, the Xeon’s 2482 is still only 24 points ahead of the i7’s 2458. In R23 multi-core, the gap is 57 points (5910 vs 5853). The Xeon’s six-core rival simply cannot leverage its extra hardware to overcome the efficiency of the newer Broadwell design. The single-core results tell a similar story: the Xeon leads by 1 point in R15 (84 vs 83), 4 points in R20 (350 vs 346), and 8 points in R23 (834 vs 826). Each single-core delta is 1.2%, which is consistent across all three Cinebench versions. This suggests a pure clock-for-clock architecture advantage, not a workload-specific quirk. The i7-980’s higher base clock of 3.33 GHz and boost of 3.60 GHz are not enough to beat the Xeon’s lower 2.30 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The newer processor’s per-core efficiency simply wins out.

Architecture Differences

The fundamental gap between these two chips is a seven-year generation leap. The Xeon E3-1265L v4 is built on a 14 nm process, while the i7-980 uses Intel’s older 32 nm node. This explains the massive difference in power draw: the Xeon’s TDP is 35 watts, whereas the i7-980 draws 130 watts. The die sizes reflect the process shrink as well: the Xeon’s die is 182 mm², while the i7-980’s is 239 mm². The i7-980 packs 1,170 million transistors into that larger die, while the Xeon’s transistor count is not listed. The Xeon uses the Broadwell-DT architecture on Socket 1150, while the i7-980 is Gulftown (Westmere) on Socket 1366. Cache configurations differ sharply: both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the Xeon has only 6 MB of shared L3, whereas the i7-980 has 12 MB. The i7-980’s larger cache does not translate into a benchmark win. Memory support also diverges: both use DDR3, but the Xeon is dual-channel with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth, while the i7-980 is triple-channel with no listed bandwidth figure. The Xeon also supports ECC memory and includes integrated Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics; the i7-980 has no integrated graphics and no ECC. PCIe generation differs, with the Xeon offering Gen 3 (16 lanes) versus the i7-980’s Gen 2.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon E3-1265L v4 wins every multi-core Cinebench test. Its R15 score is 595 versus 589 for the i7-980, R20 is 2482 versus 2458, and R23 is 5910 versus 5853. The lead is consistently 1%.

Q: Does the i7-980’s higher clock speed help in single-core tests?

A: No. Despite a base clock of 3.33 GHz and boost of 3.60 GHz, the i7-980 loses all three single-core tests. The Xeon scores 84, 350, and 834 in R15, R20, and R23, respectively, against the i7’s 83, 346, and 826. The Xeon’s 1.2% advantage holds across the board.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Xeon has a 35 watt TDP, while the i7-980 is rated at 130 watts. This is a 95-watt difference, making the Xeon dramatically more power-efficient.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon E3-1265L v4 supports ECC memory. The i7-980 does not.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life. The Xeon was released in June 2015, while the i7-980 was released in June 2011.

Q: Do they use the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1150, while the i7-980 requires Intel Socket 1366. They are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 is the better processor in every measured benchmark. It wins all six head-to-head tests, albeit by narrow margins of 1% to 1.2%. For a builder choosing between these two, the Xeon offers superior performance per watt, a much lower 35 watt TDP against the i7-980’s 130 watts, and the ability to use ECC memory. The i7-980’s only advantages are its larger 12 MB L3 cache and triple-channel memory bus, but neither produces a single benchmark victory. The Xeon’s 14 nm process, integrated Iris Pro P6300 graphics, and PCIe Gen 3 support make it a more modern and versatile part. The i7-980’s six cores and twelve threads sound impressive on paper, but the benchmark results show they do not overcome the Xeon’s architectural efficiency. From a purely performance standpoint, the Xeon is the pick. From a platform standpoint, the Xeon’s Socket 1150 and lower power draw are also more practical for modern builds, provided the user accepts the lower 6 MB L3 cache and dual-channel memory.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every major specification. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i7-980 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks are 2.30 GHz for the Xeon and 3.33 GHz for the i7-980, with boosts of 3.30 GHz and 3.60 GHz, respectively. The Xeon’s TDP is 35 watts versus the i7-980’s 130 watts. Sockets differ: Socket 1150 for the Xeon, Socket 1366 for the i7-980. Process nodes are 14 nm and 32 nm. The i7-980 has a larger die at 239 mm² and 1,170 million transistors, while the Xeon’s die is 182 mm² with no listed transistor count. L3 cache is 6 MB for the Xeon and 12 MB for the i7-980. Memory channels are dual for the Xeon and triple for the i7-980, with the Xeon listing 29.9 GB/s bandwidth and the i7-980 none. ECC support is present only on the Xeon. The Xeon has integrated Intel Iris Pro P6300 graphics; the i7-980 has none. PCIe is Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the Xeon, Gen 2 on the i7-980. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $417; the i7-980 has no listed MSRP. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier.

Where Each One Wins

Given the benchmark data, the Xeon E3-1265L v4 wins in every tested workload, so the use-case split is less about performance and more about platform and efficiency. The Xeon is the clear choice for a compact, low-power build or a small server where the 35 watt TDP and ECC memory support are decisive. Its integrated Iris Pro P6300 graphics mean a dedicated GPU is not strictly required for basic display output, which is a practical advantage for a headless server or a low-cost workstation. The i7-980, despite losing all benchmarks, still offers the same average benchmark score range (1693 vs 1709) and sits in the same 40th percentile against all CPUs. Its triple-channel memory and 12 MB L3 cache could theoretically benefit memory-bandwidth-sensitive tasks, but no test in the data confirms this. For a user with an existing Socket 1366 motherboard, the i7-980 might be a drop-in upgrade, but for any new build, the Xeon’s lower power draw, newer platform, and consistent (if small) performance lead make it the only logical choice based on the facts presented. The i7-980’s six cores are a statistical curiosity that fails to materialize into any measured victory.