Intel Core i5-2400S vs Intel Xeon W3550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a remarkably consistent picture: the Intel Xeon W3550 wins every single recorded head-to-head comparison. Across five Cinebench tests, the Xeon W3550 holds a decisive advantage over the Core i5-2400S, with deltas ranging from 6.1% to 6.4%. The closest contest appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the Xeon W3550 scores 279 against the i5-2400S's 262, a 6.1% gap. The widest margin is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the Xeon W3550 posts 2778 versus 2601, a 6.4% difference.

Single-threaded performance tells the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon W3550 reaches 164 points, while the i5-2400S trails at 154, a 6.1% deficit. Cinebench R23 single-core follows the pattern: 392 for the Xeon W3550, 367 for the i5-2400S, again a 6.4% gap. These results indicate that the Xeon W3550's advantage is not merely a function of its extra threads; it wins even when the workload is limited to one core.

The multicore results are worth examining in context. The Xeon W3550 offers 8 threads versus the i5-2400S's 4, which should theoretically widen the gap in heavily threaded workloads. Instead, the delta remains tightly clustered around 6.1% to 6.4% across both single and multi-threaded tests. This suggests that the i5-2400S's newer architecture partially compensates for its lack of simultaneous multithreading, though not enough to overcome the Xeon's raw clock speed and cache advantages.

When placed against the broader database, both processors sit at the 26th percentile of all CPUs. The i5-2400S averages 968 points across its benchmark suite, while the Xeon W3550 averages 956. Interestingly, the i5-2400S has a slightly higher average score despite losing all head-to-head matchups. This is because the i5-2400S also records Geekbench scores (1709 multicore, 593 single-core), which are not available for the Xeon W3550 in this dataset. The Geekbench results boost the i5-2400S's average.

The nearest rivals for the i5-2400S include the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U at an identical 968 average score (0.1% delta) and the Intel Xeon X5570 at 967 (0.1%). For the Xeon W3550, the closest competitor is the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 (0% delta), followed by the Intel Core i7-950 at 957 (0.1% behind). These adjacent entries confirm that both chips occupy a similar performance tier in the database, despite the Xeon's consistent head-to-head wins.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W3550 outperforms the Intel Core i5-2400S in every recorded benchmark. If the choice is strictly about measured performance, the Xeon W3550 is the stronger processor. Its wins are uniform across single-core and multi-core workloads, with margins between 6.1% and 6.4%. No recorded test favors the i5-2400S.

However, the i5-2400S does have compensating attributes that appear in the database. It draws 65W of power compared to the Xeon W3550's 130W, which is a substantial difference for system builders concerned about thermals or power delivery. The i5-2400S also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 2000), while the Xeon W3550 has none. For a system that requires a discrete GPU anyway, this matters little, but for a basic desktop build, the i5-2400S removes the need for a separate graphics card.

The i5-2400S also supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, while the Xeon W3550 is limited to PCIe Gen 2. This could affect modern GPU performance, though the database does not include direct gaming or PCIe throughput benchmarks. The i5-2400S's newer architecture (Sandy Bridge, 32nm) versus the Xeon's older Nehalem design (45nm) gives it a transistor density advantage: 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die versus 731 million on a 263 mm² die.

For buyers who prioritize raw compute performance in the recorded Cinebench tests, the Xeon W3550 is the clear choice. For buyers who need lower power draw, integrated graphics, or newer PCIe support, the i5-2400S has qualitative advantages that the benchmarks do not capture. The verdict depends on which of these factors matters more for the intended use case.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures and manufacturing nodes. The Core i5-2400S is built on Sandy Bridge using a 32nm process, while the Xeon W3550 is a Nehalem design (codenamed Bloomfield) on a 45nm process. This generational gap explains several key differences in the specification sheets.

The i5-2400S packs 1,160 million transistors into a 216 mm² die. The Xeon W3550, despite its larger 263 mm² die, contains only 731 million transistors. The denser Sandy Bridge process allows the i5-2400S to achieve comparable performance with fewer resources, which is reflected in its much lower 65W TDP versus the Xeon's 130W.

Both processors have 4 physical cores, but they differ in thread count. The i5-2400S has 4 threads, while the Xeon W3550 has 8 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading. This gives the Xeon an advantage in workloads that can utilize more than 4 threads, which is consistent with its higher multicore scores.

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both use 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is where they diverge: the i5-2400S has 6 MB shared, while the Xeon W3550 has 8 MB shared. The Xeon's larger L3 cache likely contributes to its single-core advantage, as more data can be kept closer to the execution core.

Memory support also differs. Both support DDR3, but the i5-2400S uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the Xeon W3550 uses triple-channel. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i5-2400S does not. For workstation or server applications where data integrity is critical, ECC support is a meaningful feature.

Socket and platform differences are significant. The i5-2400S uses Intel Socket 1155, while the Xeon W3550 uses Intel Socket 1366. These are not interchangeable, so the motherboard choice effectively decides which processor can be used. The i5-2400S has integrated graphics (Intel HD 2000); the Xeon W3550 has none. The i5-2400S supports PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon W3550 is limited to PCIe Gen 2.

Release dates also differ. The i5-2400S launched in January 2011, while the Xeon W3550 arrived in August 2009. Both are end-of-life products, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has better multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon W3550. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 2778 versus 2601 for the i5-2400S, a 6.4% advantage. The same pattern holds in Cinebench R15 (279 vs 262) and R20 (1166 vs 1092).

Q: Does the i5-2400S win any benchmark?

A: No. In the recorded head-to-head comparisons, the Xeon W3550 wins all five tests. The i5-2400S does have a higher average benchmark score (968 vs 956) due to Geekbench results that are not available for the Xeon, but no direct head-to-head test favors the i5-2400S.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W3550 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-2400S does not. This makes the Xeon suitable for error-correcting memory configurations in workstation or server environments.

Q: What are the power consumption figures?

A: The i5-2400S has a TDP of 65W, while the Xeon W3550 has a TDP of 130W. The i5-2400S consumes significantly less power, which may be important for compact or thermally constrained builds.

Q: Do these processors have integrated graphics?

A: The i5-2400S includes Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics. The Xeon W3550 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required for display output.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboards?

A: No. The i5-2400S uses Intel Socket 1155, while the Xeon W3550 uses Intel Socket 1366. Motherboards are not cross-compatible between these sockets.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon W3550 wins on raw performance. Every recorded benchmark favors the Xeon W3550. Its 8 threads provide a measurable advantage in multi-threaded Cinebench workloads, and it also wins single-core tests by 6.1% to 6.4%. For users running CPU-heavy applications like video rendering, 3D modeling, or scientific computation where Cinebench scores are a proxy for performance, the Xeon W3550 is the stronger choice. It also supports ECC memory, which is a critical feature for data integrity in workstation setups.

Intel Core i5-2400S wins on efficiency and platform features. The i5-2400S draws only 65W compared to the Xeon W3550's 130W. This halves the thermal load, making the i5-2400S easier to cool and more suitable for smaller form factor systems. The integrated Intel HD 2000 graphics mean the i5-2400S can power a display without a discrete GPU, which is a significant advantage for basic desktop or office builds. Its PCIe Gen 3 support with 16 lanes is also more modern than the Xeon W3550's PCIe Gen 2, potentially offering better bandwidth for newer expansion cards.

Where neither wins clearly: Both processors sit at the 26th percentile in the global CPU ranking, and their average benchmark scores (968 for the i5-2400S, 956 for the Xeon W3550) are nearly identical. The i5-2400S's Geekbench results (1709 multicore, 593 single-core) are not directly comparable to the Xeon W3550 since the Xeon lacks Geekbench data, but they suggest the i5-2400S is competitive in general-purpose computing tasks. For users who need either the Xeon's ECC support or the i5's integrated graphics and low power draw, the choice is clear. For users who only care about the recorded Cinebench scores, the Xeon W3550 is the definitive winner.