Intel Pentium Gold G7400T vs Intel Xeon E-2124 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a remarkably consistent picture across all six Cinebench comparisons. The Intel Xeon E-2124 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head set, with the margin staying almost perfectly uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 577 against the Pentium Gold G7400T's 451, a 27.9% advantage. The single-core R15 test shows the Xeon at 81 and the Pentium at 63, a 28.6% lead. That slight difference in the single-core margin is the only variation across the entire benchmark suite.

Moving to Cinebench R20, the pattern holds exactly. The Xeon E-2124 records 2408 in multicore versus 1882 for the Pentium, once again a 27.9% gap. The single-core R20 result is 339 versus 265, again 27.9%. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 5734 against 4482, and the single-core test shows 809 versus 632. The multicore delta remains at 27.9%, while the single-core delta is 28%. The consistency of these margins suggests the performance difference is structural rather than workload-dependent. The Xeon is not merely faster in certain scenarios; it is faster by nearly the same proportion across every Cinebench iteration. This uniformity points to a fundamental advantage in per-thread capability that scales equally across multicore and single-core loads.

The average benchmark score for the Xeon E-2124 is 1658, while the Pentium Gold G7400T sits at 1628. That is only a 30-point difference in the aggregate metric, which is striking given the consistent 28% margins in the Cinebench suite. The explanation lies in the available data sets. The Pentium Gold has two additional Geekbench results recorded in the database, one multicore at 3571 and one single-core at 1674. Those Geekbench scores are dramatically higher than any Cinebench score for either processor, and they pull the Pentium's average upward. The Xeon E-2124 has no Geekbench results in the recorded data, so its average is computed solely from the six Cinebench figures. This discrepancy is worth noting: the head-to-head comparisons are entirely Cinebench-based, while the aggregate averages draw from different test sets.

The percentile rankings reinforce the closeness of the two chips in the broader landscape. The Xeon E-2124 sits at the 40th percentile of all CPUs, and the Pentium Gold G7400T sits at the 39th percentile. For two processors that differ by nearly 28% in every direct comparison, their overall standing among all CPUs is nearly identical. This suggests that the Xeon's advantage, while decisive in these specific tests, does not boost it into a different performance class relative to the entire CPU market. Both chips occupy similar territory in the overall distribution.

The nearest rival data provides additional context. The Xeon E-2124's closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-4770HQ with an average score of 1660, a delta of -0.1%. The Intel Core i5-4670K follows at 1656 with a 0.2% delta, and the AMD Ryzen 5 3550H sits at 1653 with a 0.3% delta. The Intel Core i5-7600T is slightly ahead at 1664, a -0.4% delta. The Xeon is effectively indistinguishable from these four processors in average score. The Pentium Gold G7400T's nearest rivals tell a similar story. The Intel Xeon E5-2623 v3 scores 1630, a -0.1% delta, and the Intel Core i7-8560U scores 1631, a -0.2% delta. The Intel Core i3-9100T is behind at 1620, a 0.5% delta, while the AMD Ryzen 3 PRO 2200G is ahead at 1640, a -0.7% delta. Both chips are surrounded by older or lower-tier processors, and both are competitive with those neighbors.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the direct head-to-head benchmarks?

A: The Intel Xeon E-2124 wins all six recorded comparisons. The margins range from 27.9% to 28.6% across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multicore tests.

Q: How close are the two processors in overall CPU ranking?

A: The Xeon E-2124 sits at the 40th percentile of all CPUs, while the Pentium Gold G7400T sits at the 39th percentile. Their average benchmark scores are 1658 and 1628 respectively, a difference of only 30 points.

Q: Does the Pentium Gold have any benchmark advantage?

A: In the head-to-head data, no. The wins tally is 6 for the Xeon and 0 for the Pentium. However, the Pentium has recorded Geekbench scores of 3571 multicore and 1674 single-core, while the Xeon has no Geekbench results in the database.

Q: What are the closest rival processors to each chip?

A: The Xeon E-2124's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-4770HQ at 1660 average score. The Pentium Gold G7400T's nearest rival is the Intel Xeon E5-2623 v3 at 1630. Both chips are within 1% of their closest competitors.

Q: How does the Xeon's single-core margin compare to its multicore margin?

A: The multicore margin is 27.9% across all three Cinebench versions. The single-core margin is 28.6% in R15, 27.9% in R20, and 28% in R23. The differences are minimal.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance class?

A: The percentile data suggests yes. A 1-percentile difference and a 30-point average score gap place them in nearly identical positions relative to all CPUs, despite the large Cinebench deltas.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for compute-heavy workloads. The Intel Xeon E-2124 outperforms the Intel Pentium Gold G7400T by roughly 28% in every direct Cinebench comparison. The consistency of that margin across six tests and three different Cinebench versions indicates a reliable, predictable performance advantage. Anyone choosing between these two strictly on benchmark performance should select the Xeon E-2124. The 4-core, 4-thread configuration with a 3.30 GHz base clock and 4.30 GHz boost clock delivers results that the 2-core, 4-thread Pentium Gold cannot match, even with the Pentium's newer architecture.

However, the aggregate data complicates the simple narrative. The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: 1658 for the Xeon versus 1628 for the Pentium. The percentile rankings are essentially tied at 40 and 39. The Pentium Gold reaches this parity despite losing every head-to-head test because its Geekbench scores are substantially higher than its Cinebench scores. The Xeon has no recorded Geekbench results, so it cannot benefit from that test's scoring scale. This does not mean the Pentium is secretly faster; it means the two processors have different benchmark profiles.

The production status also matters. The Xeon E-2124 is marked as end-of-life, while the Pentium Gold G7400T is marked as active. The Xeon's release date is July 2018, and the Pentium's is January 2022. The Xeon is a server and workstation part on the Intel Socket 1151 platform, while the Pentium is a desktop part on Intel Socket 1700. These platform differences are substantial and will influence any purchasing decision more than the performance margin alone. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the Pentium does not. The Xeon uses DDR4, the Pentium supports both DDR4 and DDR5. The Xeon has a 71 TDP, the Pentium has a 35 TDP.

For a workstation or server application requiring ECC memory and sustained multi-threaded performance, the Xeon E-2124 is the only choice that fits the requirements, and it also happens to be faster. For a desktop build where power efficiency and a modern platform matter more, the Pentium Gold G7400T offers a viable alternative, though it will be noticeably slower in CPU-bound tasks. The data does not support choosing the Pentium for performance reasons. It only supports choosing it for platform, power, or availability reasons.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in almost every fundamental specification. The Xeon E-2124 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Pentium Gold G7400T has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 3.30 GHz with a boost clock of 4.30 GHz. The Pentium's base clock is 3.10 GHz with no boost clock recorded in the database.

The thermal design power differs substantially. The Xeon E-2124 is rated at 71 watts, while the Pentium Gold G7400T is rated at 35 watts. This makes the Pentium significantly more power-efficient on paper, though the database does not include measured power consumption figures.

The sockets are incompatible. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1151, and the Pentium uses Intel Socket 1700. A motherboard designed for one will not accept the other.

Memory support differs. The Xeon supports DDR4 only, with dual-channel configuration and a recorded memory bandwidth of 42.7 GB/s. The Pentium supports both DDR4 and DDR5 in dual-channel configuration, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded for it. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Pentium does not.

PCIe support differs. The Xeon provides Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Pentium provides Gen 5, though the lane count is not specified in the database.

The integrated graphics differ. The Xeon includes UHD Graphics P630, while the Pentium includes UHD Graphics 710.

Market segment and production status differ. The Xeon is a server and workstation part that is end-of-life. The Pentium is a desktop part that is active.

Release dates differ. The Xeon was released in July 2018, and the Pentium was released in January 2022.

The launch MSRP for the Xeon E-2124 is $198. The launch MSRP for the Pentium Gold G7400T is $64.

Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon's part number is SR3WQ, and the Pentium's is SRL65.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is significant. The Xeon E-2124 is based on Coffee Lake, specifically the Coffee Lake-S WS variant, built on Intel's 14 nm process. The Pentium Gold G7400T is based on Alder Lake, specifically the Alder Lake-S variant, built on Intel's 10 nm process. The newer process node gives the Pentium a manufacturing advantage, though the benchmark data shows that advantage does not translate into superior performance.

The cache hierarchies are structured differently. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Pentium has 80 KB of L1 cache per core, 1.25 MB of L2 cache per core, and 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Pentium has more cache per core in the L1 and L2 levels, but less total L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 pool likely benefits its 4-core configuration, while the Pentium's larger per-core L2 cache is designed for its 2-core setup.

The die size is recorded for the Xeon at 126 mm², but no die size is recorded for the Pentium. Neither processor has transistor counts in the database. The Xeon's 14 nm process with a 126 mm² die reflects an older manufacturing approach, while the Pentium's 10 nm process represents a more modern, denser design.

The Xeon is part of the Xeon E-2100 series, a workstation-oriented line. The Pentium Gold G7400T belongs to the Pentium Gold family with Alder Lake-S generation. The Xeon's generation is listed as "Xeon E (Coffee Lake)," and the Pentium's is "Pentium Gold (Alder Lake-S)."

The generations are separated by roughly three and a half years of architectural development. The Xeon's Coffee Lake design dates to a period when 14 nm was Intel's leading process. The Pentium's Alder Lake design benefits from the 10 nm process and the architectural improvements that came with it. Despite this, the Xeon's additional cores and higher clock speeds overcome the Pentium's architectural advantages in every recorded benchmark.

The ECC memory support on the Xeon is a key architectural differentiator. This feature is absent from the Pentium, and it reflects the Xeon's workstation heritage. The Pentium's support for both DDR4 and DDR5 memory is a more modern capability, but the database records no bandwidth figure for comparison.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E-2124 wins in every measured performance category. Its 27.9% multicore advantage across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 makes it the clear choice for multi-threaded workloads such as rendering, compilation, or scientific computing. Its single-core margins, ranging from 27.9% to 28.6%, make it equally dominant in lightly threaded tasks. The Xeon also wins on memory bandwidth with its recorded 42.7 GB/s figure, and it wins on ECC support, which is essential for error-sensitive workloads in server and workstation environments.

The 4-core, 4-thread configuration with boost clocks up to 4.30 GHz gives the Xeon a raw throughput advantage that the Pentium cannot offset. The Xeon's 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while smaller per core than the Pentium's L2 allocation, provides a larger unified pool for data sharing across all four cores.

The Intel Pentium Gold G7400T wins in categories that are not directly benchmarked. Its 35 watt TDP is less than half the Xeon's 71 watt rating, making it the more power-efficient option. Its active production status means it is currently available, while the Xeon is end-of-life. Its Socket 1700 platform is more modern, and its support for DDR5 memory future-proofs a build in ways the Xeon's DDR4-only support cannot match.

The Pentium also wins on integrated graphics generation, with UHD Graphics 710 compared to the Xeon's UHD Graphics P630. The database does not include graphics benchmarks, so the practical impact of this difference is not quantified. The Pentium's Gen 5 PCIe support is also more advanced than the Xeon's Gen 3, though the Xeon specifies 16 CPU lanes while the Pentium's lane count is unrecorded.

For a user building a low-power desktop system, the Pentium Gold G7400T is the sensible choice. Its 35 watt TDP, modern platform, dual memory support, and active production status make it a practical, current option. The performance penalty is real and substantial, but it may be acceptable for systems where CPU-bound performance is not the primary requirement.

For a user building a workstation or server that requires ECC memory and maximum CPU performance, the Xeon E-2124 is the clear pick. Its benchmark dominance is absolute across every recorded test, and its server-oriented features align with that use case. The end-of-life status and 2018 release date are drawbacks, but the performance data does not show any alternative path for users who need what this chip offers. The 40th percentile ranking shows it remains competitive with much newer processors, and the 27.9% margin over the Pentium demonstrates that even an older, higher-TDP workstation chip can decisively outperform a newer, more efficient desktop part in CPU-bound workloads.