i7-4950HQ vs Xeon E5-2660 v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2660 v2 outperforms Core i7-4950HQ by an impressive 59% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1032 | 1383 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 2.06 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i7 |
| Power efficiency | 6.58 | 8.34 |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) | Crystalwell (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (11 years ago) | 2 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $850 | $657 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Physical cores | 10 (Deca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 20 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
| Bus rate | 8 GT/s | 5 GT/s |
| Multiplier | no data | 24 |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 25 MB (shared) | 6 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 264 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 75 °C | 100 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011 | FCBGA1364 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 47 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 2.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | + |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| FDI | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | + |
| Identity Protection | - | + |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 768 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel Iris Pro Graphics 5200 |
| Max video memory | no data | 2 GB |
| Quick Sync Video | - | + |
| Clear Video HD | no data | + |
| Graphics max frequency | no data | 1.3 GHz |
| InTru 3D | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 3 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| VGA | no data | + |
Graphics image quality
Maximum display resolutions supported by Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ integrated GPUs, including resolutions over different interfaces.
| Max resolution over HDMI 1.4 | no data | 3840x2160@30Hz |
| Max resolution over DisplayPort | no data | 3840x2160@60Hz |
| Max resolution over VGA | no data | 2880x1800@60Hz |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | 11.2/12 |
| OpenGL | no data | 4.3 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 6.63 | 4.16 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 2 June 2013 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 4 |
| Threads | 20 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 47 Watt |
Xeon E5-2660 v2 has a 59.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 months, and 150% more physical cores and 150% more threads.
i7-4950HQ, on the other hand, has 102.1% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-2660 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-4950HQ in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2660 v2 is a server/workstation processor while Core i7-4950HQ is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2660 v2 and Core i7-4950HQ, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
