CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-4660 v3 vs 4980HQ among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

8.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 4980HQ 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4980HQ  based on its single-core performance, power consumption and value.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of Intel Core i7 4980HQ

Intel Core i7 4980HQ

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5-4660 v3

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-4660 v3

Report a correction
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 vs 1 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
More cores 14 vs 4 10 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 28 vs 8 20 more threads
Much better PassMark score 18,007 vs 10,081 Around 80% better PassMark score
Supports more RAM 786,432 MB vs 32,768 MB Supports 24x more RAM
Newer Apr, 2015 vs Jul, 2014 Release date 9 months later
Front view of Intel Core i7 4980HQ

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4980HQ

Report a correction
Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4 GHz vs 2.9 GHz Around 40% higher turbo clock speed
Higher clock speed 2.8 GHz vs 2.1 GHz Around 35% higher clock speed
Much better performance per watt 28.81 pt/W vs 3.87 pt/W Around 7.5x better performance per watt
Much better performance per dollar 2.17 pt/$ vs 0.1 pt/$ More than 22x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 38.19W vs 97.5W 2.6x lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,232 vs 1,728 Around 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much lower annual home energy cost 11.32 $/year vs 28.91 $/year 2.6x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 41.17 $/year vs 105.12 $/year 2.6x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-4660 v3 vs Core i7 4980HQ

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-4660 v3  vs
Core i7 4980HQ 
Clock speed 2.1 GHz 2.8 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.9 GHz 4 GHz
Cores Processing Cores Quad core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum memory size 786,432 MB 32,768 MB

details

Xeon E5-4660 v3  vs
Core i7 4980HQ 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 28 8
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 4 1

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® Iris™ Pro Graphics 5200
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 200 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,300 MHz

power consumption

TDP 120W 47W
Annual home energy cost 28.91 $/year 11.32 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year 41.17 $/year
Performance per watt 3.87 pt/W 28.81 pt/W
Typical power consumption 97.5W 38.19W

bus

Architecture QPI DMI 2.0
Number of links 2 1
Transfer rate 9,600 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Xeon E5-4660 v3
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 4980HQ
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus