Core i7-7820EQ vs Xeon E5-2667

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 E5-2667 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 E5-2667: 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

✅+0.4% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $1,174 less on MSRP ($378 MSRP vs $1,552 MSRP).
✅Delivers 312.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.8 vs 4.8 PassMark/$ ($378 MSRP vs $1,552 MSRP).
✅Draws 45W instead of 130W, a 85W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Xeon E5-2667 across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
❌Smaller total L3 cache (8 MB vs 15 MB).
❌Less compelling for workstation-style loads than Xeon E5-2667, which brings 6 cores / 12 threads and 40 PCIe lanes.

Xeon E5-2667

2012

Why buy it

✅Better for gaming: +4.7% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
✅+87.5% larger total L3 cache (15 MB vs 8 MB).
✅Better for workstations and heavier parallel workloads: 6 cores / 12 threads, plus 40 PCIe lanes vs 0.
✅100+% more PCIe lanes (40 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (7,442 vs 7,470).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 4.8 vs 19.8 PassMark/$ ($1,552 MSRP vs $378 MSRP).
❌188.9% higher power demand at 130W vs 45W.

Quick Answers

So, is Core i7-7820EQ better than Xeon E5-2667?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5-2667 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 0.4% 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 the better buy right now. Core i7-7820EQ comes in $1,174 cheaper on MSRP at $378 MSRP versus $1,552 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.4% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon E5-2667 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 4.7% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 312.1% better value on MSRP (19.8 vs 4.8 PassMark/$), 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 i7-7820EQ makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2017 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 i7-7820EQ vs Xeon E5-2667 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 E5-2667

The Xeon E5-2667 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 2.9 GHz, with boost up to 3.5 GHz. L3 cache: 15360 kB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 32 nm process technology. Socket: LGA2011. Thermal design power (TDP): 130 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 7,442 points. Launch price was $714.

⚡

Processing Power

The Core i7-7820EQ packs 4 cores / 8 threads, while the Xeon E5-2667 offers 6 cores / 12 threads — the Xeon E5-2667 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3.1 GHz on the Core i7-7820EQ versus 3.5 GHz on the Xeon E5-2667 — a 12.1% clock advantage for the Xeon E5-2667. The Core i7-7820EQ uses the Kaby Lake (2016−2019) architecture (14 nm), while the Xeon E5-2667 uses Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) (32 nm). In PassMark, the Core i7-7820EQ scores 7,470 against the Xeon E5-2667's 7,442 — a 0.4% lead for the Core i7-7820EQ. L3 cache: 8 MB on the Core i7-7820EQ vs 15360 kB (total) on the Xeon E5-2667.

Feature	Core i7-7820EQ	Xeon E5-2667
Cores / Threads	4 / 8	6 / 12+50%
Boost Clock	3.1 GHz	3.5 GHz+13%
Base Clock	—	2.9 GHz
L3 Cache	8 MB	15360 kB (total)+88%
L2 Cache	1 MB+300%	256 kB (per core)
Process	14 nm-56%	32 nm
Architecture	Kaby Lake (2016−2019)	Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
PassMark	7,470	7,442

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: not specified (Core i7-7820EQ) / true (Xeon E5-2667). Primary use case: Xeon E5-2667 targets Server.

Feature	Core i7-7820EQ	Xeon E5-2667
Integrated GPU	—	No
Unlocked	—	No
AVX-512	—	No
Virtualization	—	true
Target Use	—	Server

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the Core i7-7820EQ was priced at $378, while the Xeon E5-2667 came in at $1552. On launch pricing ($378 vs $1552), Core i7-7820EQ was $1174 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the Core i7-7820EQ delivers 19.8 pts/$ vs 4.8 pts/$ for the Xeon E5-2667 — making the Core i7-7820EQ the 121.9% better value option.

Feature	Core i7-7820EQ	Xeon E5-2667
MSRP	$378-76%	$1552
Performance per Dollar	19.8+313%	4.8
Release Date	2017	2012

Search Core i7-7820EQ on Amazon

Search Xeon E5-2667 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.