Core i7-7820EQ vs Xeon E5-2608L v4

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 i7-7820EQ vs Xeon E5-2608L v4 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 i7-7820EQ vs Xeon E5-2608L v4: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Core i7-7820EQ

2017

Why buy it

✅+0.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 45W instead of 50W, a 5W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2608L v4 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 20 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2608L v4, which brings 8 cores / 16 threads.
❌
4.1% HIGHER MSRP
$378 MSRPvs$363 MSRP

Xeon E5-2608L v4

2016

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +12.6% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+150% larger total L3 cache (20 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 8 cores / 16 threads.
✅Costs $15 less on MSRP ($363 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (7,447 vs 7,470).

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-7820EQ better than Xeon E5-2608L v4?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2608L v4 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Core i7-7820EQ is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Core i7-7820EQ is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 8 threads.

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

Core i7-7820EQ is still the faster CPU overall, but Xeon E5-2608L v4 is easier to justify if budget matters more than peak performance. Core i7-7820EQ comes in 4.1% more expensive on MSRP at $378 MSRP versus $363 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-2608L v4 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 12.6% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. Xeon E5-2608L v4 is also 3.8% better value on MSRP (20.5 vs 19.8 PassMark/$), 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 i7-7820EQ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 vs 2016) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 8 threads instead of 8/16. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Core i7-7820EQ vs Xeon E5-2608L v4 Technical Specifications

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

Core i7-7820EQ

The Core i7-7820EQ is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 3 January 2017 (8 years ago). It is based on the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture. It features 4 cores and 8 threads. Max frequency: 3.1 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB. L2 cache: 1 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3L-1600. Passmark benchmark score: 7,470 points. Launch price was $378.

Xeon E5-2608L v4

The Xeon E5-2608L v4 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 20 June 2016 (9 years ago). It is based on the Broadwell (2015−2019) architecture. It features 8 cores and 16 threads. Max frequency: 1.6 GHz. L3 cache: 20 MB. L2 cache: 2 MB. Built on 14 nm process technology. Thermal design power (TDP): 50 Watt. Passmark benchmark score: 7,447 points. Launch price was $363.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-7820EQ packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2608L v4 offers 8 cores / 16 threads — the Xeon E5-2608L v4 has 4 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Core i7-7820EQ versus 1.6 GHz on the Xeon E5-2608L v4 — a 63.8% clock advantage for the Core i7-7820EQ. The Core i7-7820EQ uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2608L v4 uses Broadwell (2015−2019) (14 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-7820EQ scores 7,470 against the Xeon E5-2608L v4's 7,447 — a 0.3% lead for the Core i7-7820EQ. L3 cache: 8 MB on the Core i7-7820EQ vs 20 MB on the Xeon E5-2608L v4.

Feature	Core i7-7820EQ	Xeon E5-2608L v4
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	8 / 16+100%
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz+94%	1.6 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB	20 MB+150%
L2 Cache	1 MB	2 MB+100%
Process	14 nm	14 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Broadwell (2015−2019)
PassMark	7,470	7,447

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-7820EQ was priced at $378, while the Xeon E5-2608L v4 came in at $363. On launch pricing ($378 vs $363), Xeon E5-2608L v4 was $15 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-7820EQ delivers 19.8 pts/$ vs 20.5 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2608L v4 — making the Xeon E5-2608L v4 the 3.7% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-7820EQ	Xeon E5-2608L v4
MSRP	$378	$363-4%
Performance per Dollar	19.8	20.5+4%
Release Date	2017	2016

Search Core i7-7820EQ on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2608L v4 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.