Core i7-3740QM vs Xeon E5-2698 v3
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2698 v3 outperforms i7-3740QM by a whopping 233% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 599 | 1440 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 15.32 | no data |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i7 |
| Architecture codename | Haswell-EP (2014) | Ivy Bridge (2012−2013) |
| Release date | 8 September 2014 (9 years ago) | 30 September 2012 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $378 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM 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 | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.3 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 40 MB (shared) | 6 MB |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 356 mm2 | 160 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 105 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 88 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 2,600 million | 1400 Million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM 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 | 2011-3 | FCBGA1224, FCPGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 45 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | + |
| TSX | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-2133 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 68 GB/s | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD Graphics 4000 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 16 |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Xeon E5-2698 v3 outperforms Core i7-3740QM by 233% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon E5-2698 v3 outperforms Core i7-3740QM by 232% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Xeon E5-2698 v3 outperforms Core i7-3740QM by 75% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Xeon E5-2698 v3 outperforms Core i7-3740QM by 269% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 12.24 | 3.68 |
| Recency | 8 September 2014 | 30 September 2012 |
| Physical cores | 16 | 4 |
| Threads | 32 | 8 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 135 Watt | 45 Watt |
Xeon E5-2698 v3 has a 232.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and 300% more physical cores and 300% more threads.
i7-3740QM, on the other hand, has 200% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-2698 v3 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core i7-3740QM in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2698 v3 is a server/workstation processor while Core i7-3740QM is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2698 v3 and Core i7-3740QM, 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.
