Intel Core i3-5020U vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head comparison between the Intel Core i3-5020U and the Intel Xeon X5460 is decisively one-sided. The recorded data shows the Xeon X5460 winning all five shared benchmark tests. The Core i3-5020U does not win a single benchmark in this matchup. The Xeon’s wins are consistent across both multi-core and single-core workloads, making it the clear performance leader in this pairing.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon X5460 holds a commanding edge. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 220 against the Core i3’s 188, a 14.5% advantage. That margin carries over to Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 920 versus 787, again a 14.5% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2191 against 1876, a 14.4% difference. The Xeon’s four physical cores give it a structural advantage in parallel workloads, and the benchmark results reflect that consistently.

Single-core performance tells the same story. The Xeon X5460 wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 129 points against the Core i3’s 110, a 14.7% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 309 versus 264, a 14.6% gap. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.17 GHz, compared to the Core i3’s 2.20 GHz, shows directly in these results. The Core i3 does not have a boost clock, so its lower base frequency is its ceiling, while the Xeon’s higher base clock drives its single-thread advantage.

The use-case split is therefore straightforward. The Xeon X5460 is the pick for any workload where raw compute throughput matters, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded. The Core i3-5020U, however, has its own domain: mobile systems. Its 15W TDP, integrated Intel HD 5500 graphics, and BGA 1168 socket target ultraportable laptops. The Xeon, with a 120W TDP and no integrated graphics, belongs to server and workstation boards. The benchmark data does not show the Core i3 winning any compute test, but its platform characteristics point to a different purpose entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Core i3-5020U is built on the Broadwell architecture, specifically Broadwell-U, using a 14 nm process node. It packs 1,300 million transistors into an 82 mm² die. The Xeon X5460 uses the older Core 2 architecture, codename Harpertown, on a 45 nm process. It contains 820 million transistors spread across two dies, each measuring 107 mm². The process node gap explains the massive difference in power and thermal characteristics: the Core i3 has a 15W TDP, the Xeon a 120W TDP.

Core counts differ as well. The Core i3 has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading. The Xeon has 4 physical cores with 4 threads, no Hyper-Threading. The Xeon’s extra two physical cores give it a raw throughput advantage in multi-threaded tests, which the benchmark data confirms. The Core i3’s Hyper-Threading helps it extract more work from its two cores, but it cannot overcome the Xeon’s core-count lead.

Cache hierarchies are also distinct. The Core i3 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and a shared 3 MB L3 cache. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache at all. The Xeon’s larger L2 allocation reflects its server-oriented design, where each die’s cache serves its two cores directly. The Core i3’s shared L3 cache is a more modern design for a mobile part.

Memory support diverges sharply. The Core i3 uses DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. It does not support ECC memory. The Xeon supports both DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, also with a dual-channel bus, but its memory bandwidth is not recorded in the database. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a server-grade feature absent from the Core i3. The Xeon also runs on Intel Socket 771, while the Core i3 uses Intel BGA 1168, meaning they are not interchangeable in any system.

PCIe support differs too. The Core i3 has PCIe Gen 2 with 12 lanes from the CPU. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 2 as well, but the database does not record a lane count. The Core i3 includes integrated Intel HD 5500 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon’s launch MSRP was $1172, while the Core i3’s launch MSRP was $281. Both parts are end-of-life production status. The Core i3 was released on 2015-02-28, the Xeon on 2007-11-10.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark table shows five tests, all won by the Xeon X5460. The margins are remarkably stable, hovering around 14.5% in every case. This consistency suggests a systemic performance gap rather than workload-specific behavior.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 220 against the Core i3’s 188. The delta is 14.5% in favor of the Xeon. This is the oldest test in the set, yet the gap matches the newer workloads. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 920 versus 787, again 14.5%. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 2191 versus 1876, a 14.4% delta. The Xeon’s lead does not shrink or grow across test revisions; it stays constant.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 single-core has the Xeon at 129 and the Core i3 at 110, a 14.7% delta. Cinebench R23 single-core has the Xeon at 309 and the Core i3 at 264, a 14.6% delta. The slightly larger single-core delta (14.7% versus 14.5% in multi-core) reflects the Xeon’s higher base clock. In multi-core tests, the Core i3’s Hyper-Threading narrows the gap slightly, but not meaningfully.

The Core i3 also has benchmark scores outside the head-to-head set. In Geekbench multi-core, it scores 1379; in Geekbench single-core, it scores 696. There is no corresponding Geekbench result for the Xeon in the recorded data, so no direct comparison is possible. The Core i3’s average benchmark score across all tests is 757, while the Xeon’s average is 754. Both processors sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database. Their nearest rivals reinforce this parity: the Core i3 is 0.1% ahead of the Xeon E5450, and the Xeon X5460 is 0.4% behind the Core i3 in average score. The head-to-head tests tell a different story than the averages, because the averages include different test sets.

The key takeaway from the head-to-head data is that the Xeon wins every shared test by a nearly identical margin. This is not a case where one chip wins some workloads and loses others. The Xeon is simply faster across the board. The Core i3’s lower power envelope and integrated graphics do not translate into any compute advantage in these benchmarks.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon X5460 is the faster processor in every benchmark the two share. It wins all five head-to-head tests with margins between 14.4% and 14.7%. If raw compute performance is the only criterion, the Xeon is the correct choice.

The Core i3-5020U cannot match the Xeon in any compute metric recorded. Its wins are zero; the Xeon’s wins are five. However, the Core i3 has a fundamentally different purpose. Its 15W TDP, integrated Intel HD 5500 graphics, and BGA 1168 socket make it suitable for mobile systems where power consumption and space are constraints. The Xeon’s 120W TDP, Socket 771, and lack of integrated graphics restrict it to server or workstation motherboards with ECC memory support.

The average benchmark scores are close (757 versus 754), and both sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs. But that parity is misleading. The head-to-head results show the Xeon ahead in every shared test. The averages include Geekbench results for the Core i3 that have no Xeon counterpart, which pulls the Core i3’s average up relative to its head-to-head performance.

For a user choosing between these two specific parts, the decision hinges on the platform. On a mobile motherboard with DDR3 and a BGA 1168 socket, the Core i3 is the only option. On a Socket 771 server board with ECC memory, the Xeon is the only option. If both could run in the same system, the Xeon wins on performance. The Core i3 wins only on power efficiency and integrated graphics, neither of which shows up in the benchmark scores. The verdict from the recorded data is unambiguous: the Xeon X5460 outperforms the Core i3-5020U in all compute workloads tested.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 309 versus the Core i3-5020U’s 264, a 14.6% lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 129 versus 110, a 14.7% lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon X5460 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i3-5020U does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the core and thread count difference?

A: The Core i3-5020U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon X5460 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon has two more physical cores but no Hyper-Threading.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i3-5020U averages 757 across its benchmark set, while the Xeon X5460 averages 754. Both are at the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i3-5020U includes Intel HD 5500 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon X5460 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core i3-5020U has a 15W TDP. The Xeon X5460 has a 120W TDP, eight times higher.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i3-5020U | Intel Xeon X5460 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.20 GHz | 3.17 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | None |

| TDP | 15W | 120W |

| Socket | Intel BGA 1168 | Intel Socket 771 |

| Architecture | Broadwell | Core 2 |

| Codename | Broadwell-U | Harpertown |

| Process Node | 14 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | 1,300 million | 820 million |

| Die Size | 82 mm² | 2x 107 mm² |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 6 MB (per die) |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | None |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR2, DDR3 (depends on motherboard) |

| Memory Bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | Not recorded |

| ECC Memory | Not supported | Supported |

| PCIe | Gen 2, 12 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 5500 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2015-02-28 | 2007-11-10 |

| Launch MSRP | $281 | $1172 |

| Part Number | SR240 | SLANPSLBBA |