Intel Core i5-2400S vs Intel Xeon W3570 Comparison

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W3570 wins every recorded head-to-head benchmark against the Intel Core i5-2400S. Across five Cinebench tests, the Xeon holds a consistent advantage of roughly 6% in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The Core i5-2400S does not take a single win in the comparative dataset. However, the two processors land in essentially the same performance tier overall: the i5-2400S sits at the 26th percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 968, while the Xeon W3570 sits at the 25th percentile with an average score of 955. The i5-2400S actually holds a fractional edge in average score, yet it loses every direct head-to-head test. This apparent contradiction stems from the fact that the i5 has additional Geekbench scores recorded (multicore 1709, singlecore 593) that lift its average, while the Xeon has no Geekbench entries in the database.

Users should pick the Intel Xeon W3570 if raw compute performance in Cinebench-class rendering workloads is the priority. The Xeon wins by 6.1% to 6.4% depending on the test, a margin that is small but consistent across both single-core and multi-core scenarios. It also brings ECC memory support and triple-channel memory access, which matter in workstation contexts. Users should pick the Intel Core i5-2400S if they want a lower-power desktop part with integrated graphics (Intel HD 2000), a more modern PCIe Gen 3 interface, and a smaller process node. The i5-2400S also has a much lower 65W TDP compared to the Xeon's 130W. Neither chip supports unlocked multipliers, and both are end-of-life products. The Xeon W3570 is the performance choice; the i5-2400S is the efficiency and platform-convenience choice.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in single-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon W3570 wins every single-core test. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 164 versus 154 for the i5-2400S, a 6.1% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 392 versus 367, a 6.4% advantage.

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

A: No. The head-to-head dataset shows five tests, and the Xeon W3570 wins all five. The i5-2400S has recorded Geekbench scores (multicore 1709, singlecore 593) that are not available for the Xeon, so it cannot be compared on those tests.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in average benchmark scores?

A: The i5-2400S has a slightly higher average benchmark score of 968, versus 955 for the Xeon W3570. That difference is approximately 1.4% in favor of the i5-2400S, driven by the extra Geekbench results in its database entries.

Q: Does the Xeon W3570 support ECC memory?

A: Yes. The Xeon W3570 has ECC memory support enabled, while the Core i5-2400S does not. This is a key differentiator for workstation reliability.

Q: What are the memory channel configurations?

A: The Core i5-2400S uses dual-channel DDR3 memory, while the Xeon W3570 uses triple-channel DDR3. This affects theoretical memory bandwidth, though the exact bandwidth figures are not recorded in the database.

Q: Do either of these processors have integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i5-2400S includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 2000). The Xeon W3570 has no integrated graphics unit, so it requires a discrete GPU for display output.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different Intel architectures and fabrication nodes. The Core i5-2400S is built on the Sandy Bridge architecture using a 32 nm process with 1,160 million transistors on a 216 mm² die. The Xeon W3570 is older, using the Nehalem architecture (codename Bloomfield) on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The smaller process node gives the i5-2400S a higher transistor density, but the Xeon counters with a larger physical die.

Both processors use four physical cores, but the thread counts diverge: the i5-2400S has 4 threads (no Hyper-Threading), while the Xeon W3570 has 8 threads. This is a major architecture-level difference: the Xeon can process two threads per core, which explains its consistent multicore edge despite being fabricated on an older node.

Cache allocations also differ. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 6 MB on the i5-2400S versus 8 MB on the Xeon W3570. The larger L3 on the Xeon is notable given that it has fewer transistors overall, reflecting the different cache hierarchy priorities of the Nehalem design.

Memory access architecture diverges as well. The i5-2400S uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the Xeon W3570 uses triple-channel. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i5-2400S. PCIe support differs: the i5-2400S provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon W3570 is limited to PCIe Gen 2.

The i5-2400S integrates Intel HD 2000 graphics, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics, reflecting its server/workstation market segment. The Xeon W3570 targets Server/Workstation, the i5 targets Desktop.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-2400S | Intel Xeon W3570 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.50 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.30 GHz | 3.47 GHz |

| TDP | 65 W | 130 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1155 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | 1,160 million | 731 million |

| Die Size | 216 mm² | 263 mm² |

| L3 Cache | 6 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 3, 16 Lanes (CPU only) | Gen 2 |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 2000 | None |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Part Number | SR00S | SLBES |

| Release Date | 2011-01-08 | 2009-03-29 |

The base clock difference is substantial: 2.50 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, a 28% higher nominal frequency for the Xeon. The boost clocks are closer at 3.30 GHz versus 3.47 GHz. The TDP gap is stark: 65 W versus 130 W, meaning the Xeon dissipates double the heat. The i5-2400S is a newer product (released January 2011 versus March 2009) and uses a smaller process node.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

In every recorded Cinebench test, the Intel Xeon W3570 wins by a narrow but consistent margin of roughly 6%. The differences range from 6.1% to 6.4%, showing a uniform advantage across all workload types.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon W3570 scores 279 against 262 for the i5-2400S, a 6.1% advantage. This is a rendering workload that benefits heavily from the Xeon's 8 threads versus 4 threads, yet the margin is still small, suggesting the i5's newer architecture compensates for its lack of Hyper-Threading.

In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon scores 1165 versus 1092, a 6.3% advantage. The pattern holds: more threads but older core design yields a modest lead.

In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the Xeon scores 164 versus 154, a 6.1% win. Here threads are irrelevant; the Xeon's higher base clock (3.20 GHz) and boost clock (3.47 GHz) drive the gap, while the i5-2400S operates at 2.50 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost.

In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Xeon scores 2776 versus 2601, a 6.3% advantage. This is the largest multicore point gap in absolute terms (175 points), reflecting the R23 workload's sensitivity to sustained multicore throughput.

In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Xeon scores 392 versus 367, a 6.4% advantage. This is the largest relative gap in the entire dataset, directly traceable to the clock frequency difference.

The Xeon W3570 wins all five head-to-head tests (winsA: 0, winsB: 5), yet its average benchmark score is lower than the i5-2400S (955 versus 968). This is because the database includes Geekbench scores for the i5-2400S only: Geekbench multicore 1709 and Geekbench singlecore 593. The Xeon has no Geekbench entries in the recorded data, so its average is computed solely from the Cinebench results. In pure Cinebench performance, the Xeon leads by 6%, but the i5-2400S rounds out its profile with a strong Geekbench showing that puts it at a higher overall percentile (26th versus 25th).

The nearest rivals for each chip place them in similar company. The i5-2400S is nearest to the AMD Ryzen 7 3700U (average 968, 0.1% delta), Intel Xeon X5570 (967, 0.1%), and Intel Celeron N5100 (966, 0.2%). The Xeon W3570 is nearest to the Intel Celeron N5105 (955, 0% delta), Intel Xeon W3570's own sibling W3550 (956, -0.1%), and AMD Athlon X4 870K (956, -0.1%). Both processors occupy a performance band around the 950-970 average score range, indicating they belong to the same general performance class despite the architectural and chronological differences.