i7-2960XM vs Xeon E5-1603 v3
Aggregate performance score
Core i7-2960XM outperforms Xeon E5-1603 v3 by a small 7% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1679 | 1635 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Intel Core i7 |
| Power efficiency | 1.88 | 5.15 |
| Architecture codename | Haswell-EP (2014−2015) | Sandy Bridge (2011−2013) |
| Release date | 8 September 2014 (10 years ago) | 4 September 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $1,096 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2.7 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.7 GHz |
| Bus rate | 0 GT/s | 5 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64K (per core) | 64K (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256K (per core) | 256K (per core) |
| L3 cache | 10 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 356 mm2 | 216 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 2,600 million | 1,160 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
| VID voltage range | 0.65–1.3V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM 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 | 1 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA2011-3 | FCPGA988 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX2 | Intel® AVX |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | + | + |
| vPro | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| My WiFi | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Flex Memory Access | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | + | - |
| PAE | 46 Bit | no data |
| FDI | no data | + |
| Fast Memory Access | no data | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | + | no data |
| Identity Protection | + | + |
| OS Guard | + | no data |
| Anti-Theft | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR4-1333, DDR4-1600, DDR4-1866 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | 768 GB | 32 GB |
| Max memory channels | 4 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 59 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 3000 |
| 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 E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM integrated GPUs.
| Number of displays supported | no data | 2 |
| eDP | no data | + |
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
| SDVO | no data | + |
| CRT | no data | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 2.0 |
| 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.84 | 3.05 |
| Recency | 8 September 2014 | 4 September 2011 |
| Threads | 4 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 140 Watt | 55 Watt |
Xeon E5-1603 v3 has an age advantage of 3 years, and a 45.5% more advanced lithography process.
i7-2960XM, on the other hand, has a 7.4% higher aggregate performance score, 100% more threads, and 154.5% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM.
Be aware that Xeon E5-1603 v3 is a server/workstation processor while Core i7-2960XM is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1603 v3 and Core i7-2960XM, 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.
