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 i7-4710MQ vs Xeon E5-1620 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 i7-4710MQ vs Xeon E5-1620: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i7-4710MQ

2013

Why buy it

✅+55.2% higher Geekbench single-core performance for gaming and desktop responsiveness.
✅Costs $507 less on MSRP ($378 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).
✅Delivers 131.9% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 15.3 vs 6.6 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $885 MSRP).
✅Draws 47W instead of 130W, a 83W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Intel HD Graphics 4600, while Xeon E5-1620 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Smaller total L3 cache (6 MB vs 10 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-1620, which brings 4 cores / 8 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-1620

2012

Why buy it

✅+66.7% larger total L3 cache (10 MB vs 6 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 4 cores / 8 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 16.
✅150% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 16) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower Geekbench single-core performance for gaming (612 vs 950).
❌Lower Geekbench multi-core (2,250 vs 3,200).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 6.6 vs 15.3 PassMark/$ ($885 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
❌176.6% higher power demand at 130W vs 47W.
❌No integrated graphics, while Core i7-4710MQ can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-4710MQ better than Xeon E5-1620?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-1620 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-4710MQ 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 i7-4710MQ is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 1.4% 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 i7-4710MQ is the stronger fit. You are getting 42.2% better Geekbench multi-core, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-4710MQ is the better buy right now. Core i7-4710MQ comes in $507 cheaper on MSRP at $378 MSRP versus $885 MSRP, and it still gives you a 1.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 131.9% better value on MSRP (15.3 vs 6.6 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Core i7-4710MQ 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 4/8. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-4710MQ vs Xeon E5-1620 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-4710MQ

The Core i7-4710MQ 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 2.5 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 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: 5,792 points. Launch price was $378.

Xeon E5-1620

The Xeon E5-1620 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 6 March 2012 (13 years ago). It is based on the Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Base frequency is 3.6 GHz, with boost up to 3.8 GHz. L3 cache: 10240 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 5,848 points. Launch price was $313.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the Core i7-4710MQ and Xeon E5-1620 share an identical 4-core/8-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 3.5 GHz on the Core i7-4710MQ versus 3.8 GHz on the Xeon E5-1620 — a 8.2% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-1620 (base: 2.5 GHz vs 3.6 GHz). The Core i7-4710MQ uses the Haswell (2013−2015) architecture (22 nm), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-4710MQ scores 5,792 against the Xeon E5-1620's 5,848 — a 1% lead for the Xeon E5-1620. Geekbench 6 single-core — the metric most relevant to gaming — records 950 vs 612, a 43.3% lead for the Core i7-4710MQ that directly translates to higher frame rates. Multi-core Geekbench: 3,200 vs 2,250 (34.9% advantage for the Core i7-4710MQ). L3 cache: 6 MB (total) on the Core i7-4710MQ vs 10240 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-1620.

Feature	Core i7-4710MQ	Xeon E5-1620
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	4 / 8
Boost Clock	3.5 GHz	3.8 GHz+9%
Base Clock	2.5 GHz	3.6 GHz+44%
L3 Cache	6 MB (total)	10240 kB (total)+67%
L2 Cache	256K (per core)	256 kB (per core)
Process	22 nm-31%	32 nm
Architecture	Haswell (2013−2015)	Sandy Bridge-E (2011−2013)
PassMark	5,792	5,848
Cinebench R23 Multi	—	3,469
Geekbench 6 Single	950+55%	612
Geekbench 6 Multi	3,200+42%	2,250

🧠

Memory & Platform

The Core i7-4710MQ uses the PGA946 socket (PCIe 3.0), while the Xeon E5-1620 uses LGA2011 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard. Both support up to DDR3L-1600 memory speed. The Xeon E5-1620 supports up to 375 GB of RAM compared to 32 GB — 1071.9% more capacity for professional workloads. Memory channels: 2 (Core i7-4710MQ) vs 4 (Xeon E5-1620). PCIe lanes: 16 (Core i7-4710MQ) vs 40 (Xeon E5-1620) — the Xeon E5-1620 offers 24 more lanes for additional GPUs or NVMe drives. Chipset compatibility: HM86,HM87,QM87 (Core i7-4710MQ) and Intel C600,Intel X79 (Xeon E5-1620).

Feature	Core i7-4710MQ	Xeon E5-1620
Socket	PGA946	LGA2011
PCIe Generation	PCIe 3.0+50%	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3L-1600	DDR3-1600
Max RAM Capacity	32 GB	375 GB+1072%
RAM Channels	2	4+100%
ECC Support	No	Yes
PCIe Lanes	16	40+150%

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization support: VT-x, EPT (Core i7-4710MQ) vs true (Xeon E5-1620). The Core i7-4710MQ includes integrated graphics (Intel HD Graphics 4600), while the Xeon E5-1620 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: Core i7-4710MQ targets Laptop.

Feature	Core i7-4710MQ	Xeon E5-1620
Integrated GPU	Yes	No
IGPU Model	Intel HD Graphics 4600	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	No
Virtualization	VT-x, EPT	true
Target Use	Laptop	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-4710MQ was priced at $378, while the Xeon E5-1620 came in at $885. On launch pricing ($378 vs $885), Core i7-4710MQ was $507 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-4710MQ delivers 15.3 pts/$ vs 6.6 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-1620 — making the Core i7-4710MQ the 79.5% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-4710MQ	Xeon E5-1620
MSRP	$378-57%	$885
Performance per Dollar	15.3+132%	6.6
Release Date	2013	2012

Search Core i7-4710MQ on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-1620 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.