CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 and the Intel Core i7-980 are both end-of-life Intel processors, but they represent vastly different eras and design philosophies. The Xeon is a 4-core/8-thread Haswell-EP part built for server and workstation duty on the Intel Socket 2011-3 platform, while the i7-980 is a 6-core/12-thread Westmere desktop flagship from the Gulftown family on the older Intel Socket 1366. Despite the Xeon’s lower core count, benchmark results show it consistently edges out the i7-980 in every test, albeit by a narrow margin. The data tells a story of architectural efficiency overcoming a raw core-count deficit, as the newer 22 nm process and DDR4 support of the Xeon offset the i7-980’s two additional physical cores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Core i7-980 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This gives the i7-980 a 50% advantage in core count on paper.

Q: How do their multi-core benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 5910 versus the i7-980's 5853, a 1% delta. The margins are similarly tight in R15 (595 vs 589) and R20 (2482 vs 2458), both also 1% wins for the Xeon.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the Core i7-980 wins?

A: No. Across the six head-to-head benchmarks, the Core i7-980 records zero wins. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 takes all six, including every single-core and multi-core Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 test.

Q: What are the memory platform differences?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 supports DDR4 memory with a quad-channel bus and a peak bandwidth of 68.3 GB/s. The Core i7-980 uses DDR3 memory with a triple-channel bus, and no bandwidth figure is listed in the data.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has ECC memory support enabled, which is typical for its server/workstation market segment. The Core i7-980, a desktop part, does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the process node difference between the two?

A: The Xeon E5-1620 v3 is built on Intel's 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors on a 356 mm² die. The Core i7-980 uses the older 32 nm process, packing 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die.

Where Each One Wins

The use-case split here is clear-cut from the benchmark data: the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins everywhere. The Xeon’s advantage is uniform across all six Cinebench tests, both single-core and multi-core, with deltas ranging from exactly 1% to 1.2%. For workloads like rendering or encoding that scale with Cinebench multi-core performance, the Xeon leads by a hair in R15 (595 vs 589), R20 (2482 vs 2458), and R23 (5910 vs 5853). The single-core results follow the same pattern, with the Xeon ahead by 1.2% in both R15 (84 vs 83) and R20 (350 vs 346), and by 1% in R23 (834 vs 826).

For the Core i7-980, the "win" is conceptual rather than measured. Its 6-core/12-thread configuration suggests it should dominate multi-threaded tasks, yet the data shows the opposite. The i7-980’s nearest rival list places it alongside the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H and Intel Core i7-3770K, with average scores around 1690-1700. Meanwhile, the Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 and Core i7-990X, with average scores near 1710. The i7-980’s only potential advantage is its larger 12 MB shared L3 cache versus the Xeon’s 10 MB, but that does not translate into a benchmark victory.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is generational. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 is Haswell-EP, built on a 22 nm process with 2,600 million transistors. It uses a 4-core design with 8 threads, a 3.50 GHz base clock, and a 3.60 GHz boost clock. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 10 MB of shared L3. The platform supports DDR4 memory over a quad-channel bus, yielding 68.3 GB/s of bandwidth, and provides PCIe Gen 3 with 40 lanes from the CPU. ECC memory is enabled, and the chip carries a 140 W TDP.

The Core i7-980 is a Westmere-era Gulftown part on 32 nm, with 1,170 million transistors. It packs 6 cores and 12 threads, running at a 3.33 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost. Its cache layout mirrors the Xeon for L1 and L2 (64 KB and 256 KB per core), but the shared L3 is larger at 12 MB. Memory support is DDR3 over a triple-channel bus, with no bandwidth figure provided. PCIe is Gen 2, and ECC is absent. The TDP is lower at 130 W. The Xeon’s newer process node and memory subsystem clearly outweigh the i7-980’s raw core count.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on nearly every major specification. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i7-980 has 6 cores and 12 threads. Base clocks differ: 3.50 GHz for the Xeon versus 3.33 GHz for the i7-980, though boost clocks match at 3.60 GHz. The Xeon’s TDP is 140 W, 10 W higher than the i7-980’s 130 W. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 2011-3, while the i7-980 requires Intel Socket 1366.

Die size and transistor counts tell the story of process evolution: the Xeon’s 22 nm die is 356 mm² with 2,600 million transistors, versus the i7-980’s 32 nm die at 239 mm² with 1,170 million transistors. L3 cache favors the i7-980 at 12 MB shared, compared to the Xeon’s 10 MB shared. Memory support is a stark generational split: DDR4 quad-channel with 68.3 GB/s bandwidth for the Xeon, versus DDR3 triple-channel with no listed bandwidth for the i7-980. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe capability also differs, with the Xeon offering Gen 3 and 40 CPU lanes versus the i7-980’s Gen 2. Market segments are Server/Workstation for the Xeon and Desktop for the i7-980.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are decisive, even if the margins are slim. The Xeon E5-1620 v3 wins all six head-to-head tests, with every multi-core victory coming at a 1% delta. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 595 against the i7-980’s 589. That pattern repeats in R20 multi-core (2482 vs 2458) and R23 multi-core (5910 vs 5853). The Xeon’s efficiency advantage is most visible in single-core tests, where the deltas widen slightly to 1.2%. Cinebench R15 single-core shows 84 vs 83, and R20 single-core shows 350 vs 346. The R23 single-core result is 834 vs 826, a 1% lead.

The i7-980’s 6-core design cannot overcome the Xeon’s architectural superiority. Despite having 50% more cores, the i7-980 trails in every multi-core test, meaning the Xeon’s per-core performance and memory bandwidth more than compensate. The Xeon’s average benchmark score is 1709, placing it in the 40th percentile of all CPUs, with nearest rivals like the Intel Xeon E3-1265L v4 (1709, 0% delta) and Intel Core i7-990X (1713, -0.2%). The i7-980’s average score is 1693, also at the 40th percentile, with rivals including the AMD Ryzen 7 3750H (1690, 0.2% delta) and Intel Core i7-3770K (1688, 0.3%). The data shows the Xeon holding a 16-point average score advantage, a figure that reflects its consistent wins across the board.