Core i7-4700MQ vs Xeon E5-2620

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Core i7-4700MQ vs Xeon E5-2620 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Core i7-4700MQ vs Xeon E5-2620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Core i7-4700MQ

2013

Why buy it

✅Draws 47W instead of 95W, a 48W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 15 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2620, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.
❌
6.4% HIGHER MSRP
$383 MSRPvs$360 MSRP

Xeon E5-2620

2012

Why buy it

✅+150% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅Costs $23 less on MSRP ($360 MSRP vs $383 MSRP).
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (5,328 vs 5,349).
❌102.1% higher power demand at 95W vs 47W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-4700MQ better than Xeon E5-2620?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-4700MQ is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for gaming?

If gaming is the priority, Core i7-4700MQ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 0.2% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-4700MQ is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.4% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

Core i7-4700MQ is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5-2620 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core i7-4700MQ comes in 6.4% more expensive on MSRP at $383 MSRP versus $360 MSRP, and it still gives you a 0.2% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E5-2620 is also 6.0% better value on MSRP (14.8 vs 14.0 PassMark/$), which is why it can still make sense for tighter-budget builds on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

Core i7-4700MQ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2013 vs 2012) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 6/12. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-4700MQ vs Xeon E5-2620 Technical Specifications

Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

Core i7-4700MQ

The Core i7-4700MQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 27 May 2013 (12 years ago). It is based on the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 2.4 GHz, with boost up to 3.4 GHz. L3 cache: 6 MB (total). L2 cache: 256K (per core). Built on 22 nm process technology. Socket: PGA946. Thermal design power (TDP): 47 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,349 points. Launch price was $288.

Xeon E5-2620

The Xeon E5-2620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) architecture. It features 6 cores and 12 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2.5 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 95 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,328 points. Launch price was $36.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-4700MQ packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2620 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon E5-2620 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.4 GHz on the Core i7-4700MQ versus 2.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2620 — a 30.5% clock advantage for the Core i7-4700MQ (base: 2.4 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Core i7-4700MQ uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-2620 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-4700MQ scores 5,349 against the Xeon E5-2620's 5,328 — a 0.4% lead for the Core i7-4700MQ. L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i7-4700MQ vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2620.

Feature	Core i7-4700MQ	Xeon E5-2620
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.4 GHz+36%	2.5 GHz
Base Clock	2.4 GHz+20%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	15360 kB (total)+150%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	5,349	5,328

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-4700MQ uses the PGA946 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-2620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	Core i7-4700MQ	Xeon E5-2620
Socket	PGA946	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	—	DDR3-1333
Max RAM Capacity	—	384 GB
RAM Channels	—	4
ECC Support	—	Yes
PCIe Lanes	—	40

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-4700MQ was priced at $383, while the Xeon E5-2620 came in at $360. On launch pricing ($383 vs $360), Xeon E5-2620 was $23 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-4700MQ delivers 14.0 pts/$ vs 14.8 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2620 — making the Xeon E5-2620 the 5.8% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-4700MQ	Xeon E5-2620
MSRP	$383	$360-6%
Performance per Dollar	14.0	14.8+6%
Release Date	2013	2012

Search Core i7-4700MQ on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2620 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.