Intel Core i3-4360T vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark database places the Intel Core i3-4360T ahead of the Intel Xeon X5560 in every recorded Cinebench test. The Core i3 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with margins ranging from 1.8% to 2.1%. The average benchmark score reinforces this: the Core i3-4360T posts 963 points versus 946 for the Xeon X5560, a gap of roughly 1.8%. The percentile ranking also favors the newer part, with the Core i3 sitting at the 26th percentile of all CPUs while the Xeon sits at the 25th.

The Xeon X5560 is not without its strengths. It offers 4 cores and 8 threads, double the thread count of the Core i3-4360T, and it supports ECC memory, a feature absent from the Core i3. Its 8 MB of shared L3 cache doubles the 4 MB found on the Core i3. For server or workstation workloads that rely on memory reliability or larger cache footprints, the Xeon remains a defensible choice despite its age. However, the recorded Cinebench data shows the Core i3-4360T delivering equal or better multi-core results with far fewer resources. The Core i3 achieves 2799 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core against 2749 for the Xeon, meaning the two-core, four-thread Haswell part outperforms the four-core, eight-thread Nehalem part in a heavily threaded workload.

The verdict from the data is clear: the Intel Core i3-4360T is the better processor for general compute, single-threaded tasks, and even most multi-threaded Cinebench scenarios. The Xeon X5560 should be selected only when ECC memory support or the LGA 1366 platform is a hard requirement, or when the larger L3 cache matters more than raw benchmark scores. The Core i3 wins every measured test, posts a higher average score, and ranks higher among all CPUs. The Xeon's only advantages are architectural features that do not translate into benchmark victories in this dataset.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i3-4360T wins both single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 165 against 162 for the Xeon X5560, a 1.8% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Core i3 scores 395 versus 388, again a 1.8% lead.

Q: Does the Xeon X5560 win any multi-core benchmark?

A: No. The Xeon loses all three multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i3-4360T scores 282 against 276, a 2.1% margin. In R20 multi-core, the Core i3 scores 1175 versus 1154, and in R23 multi-core, it scores 2799 versus 2749, both 1.8% leads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Core i3-4360T has an average benchmark score of 963, while the Xeon X5560 averages 946. The Core i3 sits at the 26th percentile of all CPUs, the Xeon at the 25th.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon X5560 supports ECC memory. The Core i3-4360T does not list ECC support in the database.

Q: How do the cache sizes compare?

A: Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The Xeon X5560 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i3-4360T has 4 MB of shared L3 cache.

Q: What are the production statuses?

A: The Xeon X5560 is listed as end-of-life, while the Core i3-4360T is marked as active production.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target different market segments. The Xeon X5560 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, built on a 45 nm process at Intel's foundry. It belongs to the Xeon (Gainestown) generation and is aimed at the server and workstation segment. The Core i3-4360T uses the Haswell architecture, codenamed Haswell, built on a 22 nm process. It belongs to the Core i3 (Haswell) generation and targets the desktop segment.

The transistor counts reflect the process node difference. The Xeon packs 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Core i3 packs 1,400 million transistors on a 177 mm² die. The smaller 22 nm process allows the Core i3 to fit nearly twice the transistors into a smaller physical area, which helps explain its benchmark advantage despite having fewer cores.

Core and thread counts differ substantially. The Xeon provides 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3 provides only 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.80 GHz with a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. The Core i3 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz and no recorded boost clock, meaning it runs at a fixed frequency.

Cache architecture shows both similarities and differences. Both processors use 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The shared L3 cache differs: the Xeon has 8 MB, the Core i3 has 4 MB. Memory support also diverges. Both support DDR3, but the Xeon uses a triple-channel memory bus while the Core i3 uses a dual-channel bus. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the Core i3 does not.

PCIe generations differ as well. The Xeon supports PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i3 supports PCIe Gen 3. The Core i3 includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4600, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics listed. The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, the Core i3 uses Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon's part number is SLBF4, while the Core i3 has no part number recorded.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a consistent pattern: the Core i3-4360T wins every recorded test. The smallest margin appears in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the Core i3 scores 282 and the Xeon scores 276. That is a 2.1% difference, the largest of all five tests. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Core i3 scores 1175 against 1154, a 1.8% lead. The single-core R20 test shows 165 versus 162, also 1.8%. Cinebench R23 multi-core repeats the 1.8% margin with 2799 versus 2749, and R23 single-core does the same with 395 versus 388.

The data indicates that the Core i3's advantage is not confined to lightly threaded workloads. In multi-core tests, where the Xeon has twice the threads, the Core i3 still comes out ahead. This suggests the architectural efficiency of Haswell at 22 nm outweighs the thread count advantage of Nehalem at 45 nm. The Core i3 wins all three multi-core tests by margins of 1.8% to 2.1%, meaning the Xeon's extra threads do not translate into a performance win in Cinebench.

Single-core results follow the same direction. The Core i3 leads by 1.8% in both R20 and R23 single-core tests. The base clock difference likely contributes here: the Core i3 runs at 3.20 GHz fixed, while the Xeon boosts to 3.20 GHz but starts at 2.80 GHz. The newer architecture also delivers more instructions per clock, as the benchmark scores show.

The average benchmark scores confirm the head-to-head pattern. The Core i3 averages 963 points, the Xeon averages 946. The nearest rivals for the Core i3 include the Intel Pentium Gold G5500T at 963 points (0% delta), the AMD A8-9600 at 962 (0.1%), the Intel Celeron N5100 at 966 (-0.4%), and the Intel Xeon X5570 at 967 (-0.4%). The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5400T at 946 (0%), the AMD Phenom II X6 1045T at 946 (0%), the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U at 947 (-0.1%), and the Intel Core i3-1110G4 at 945 (0.1%). These rival comparisons show both processors landing in similar company, but the Core i3 sits slightly higher in the distribution.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i3-4360T wins every benchmark category in the database, so its strengths are straightforward. It leads in single-core performance, which matters for everyday desktop tasks, lightly threaded applications, and responsiveness. It also leads in multi-core Cinebench workloads, which is notable given its 2-core, 4-thread configuration. The Core i3 achieves these results with a 35 W TDP, far lower than the Xeon's 95 W TDP. It also includes integrated graphics, so a system can operate without a discrete GPU. The Core i3 is active in production, meaning it remains available for new builds.

The Xeon X5560 has no benchmark wins in this dataset, but its architectural features give it a different kind of value. ECC memory support is the most significant advantage. For servers or workstations where memory corruption is unacceptable, the Xeon's ECC capability is a requirement that the Core i3 cannot meet. The Xeon also has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, double the Core i3's 4 MB. Workloads that repeatedly access a large working set could benefit from the larger cache, even if Cinebench does not show it. The Xeon offers 8 threads versus 4, so software that scales well beyond 4 threads might extract more parallelism from the Xeon in theory, though the recorded Cinebench results do not support that outcome.

The socket and platform differences also matter. The Xeon uses Socket 1366, which belongs to older server platforms. The Core i3 uses Socket 1150, a mainstream desktop socket. The Xeon supports triple-channel memory, while the Core i3 supports dual-channel. The Xeon supports PCIe Gen 2, the Core i3 supports Gen 3. For a user building a new system, the Core i3's platform offers newer I/O and integrated graphics. For a user maintaining an existing LGA 1366 server, the Xeon remains the only compatible option.

The production statuses reinforce the split. The Xeon is end-of-life, so it is a legacy part for existing systems or second-hand builds. The Core i3 is active, so it can still be sourced for new systems. The data does not record a launch MSRP for either processor.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every major specification field. The most obvious difference is core count: the Xeon X5560 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Core i3-4360T has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ as well: the Xeon runs at 2.80 GHz with a 3.20 GHz boost, while the Core i3 runs at a fixed 3.20 GHz with no boost clock recorded. TDP differs substantially: the Xeon draws 95 W, the Core i3 draws 35 W.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, the Core i3 uses Intel Socket 1150. The architectures differ: the Xeon is Nehalem (codename Gainestown), the Core i3 is Haswell (codename Haswell). Process nodes differ: the Xeon uses 45 nm, the Core i3 uses 22 nm. Transistor counts differ: the Xeon has 731 million, the Core i3 has 1,400 million. Die sizes differ: the Xeon is 263 mm², the Core i3 is 177 mm².

Cache configurations differ in L3 only. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core. The Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3, the Core i3 has 4 MB. Memory support differs in channel count: the Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3, the Core i3 uses dual-channel DDR3. ECC support is present on the Xeon, absent on the Core i3. PCIe support differs: the Xeon uses Gen 2, the Core i3 uses Gen 3. Integrated graphics are absent on the Xeon, present on the Core i3 as Intel HD 4600.

Market segments differ: the Xeon is for server and workstation, the Core i3 is for desktop. Production statuses differ: the Xeon is end-of-life, the Core i3 is active. Release dates differ: the Xeon launched in March 2009, the Core i3 in July 2014. The Xeon has a part number (SLBF4), the Core i3 does not. Both processors have locked multipliers. Both are manufactured by Intel. Neither has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.