Intel Core i5-2400S vs Intel Xeon X3470 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X3470 and Intel Core i5-2400S are two end-of-life processors from different Intel generations, aimed at different market segments. The Xeon X3470 is a server and workstation part built on the Nehalem architecture, while the Core i5-2400S is a desktop chip using the newer Sandy Bridge design. Benchmark results from the database show the Xeon X3470 winning every single recorded test, with a consistent performance advantage between 9.5% and 9.8% across all Cinebench workloads. Despite the Core i5-2400S having a more modern architecture, a smaller manufacturing process, and lower power consumption, the Xeon X3470 delivers higher raw performance in every measured category, making it the stronger choice for compute-heavy tasks.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 287 versus 262 for the Core i5-2400S, a 9.5% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1199 against 1092, a 9.8% lead. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the same pattern: 2857 for the Xeon versus 2601 for the Core i5, again a 9.8% difference.

Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon X3470 also leads in single-core tests. It scores 169 in Cinebench R20 single-core versus 154 for the Core i5-2400S, a 9.7% difference. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 403 against 367, a 9.8% advantage. The Core i5-2400S does have additional Geekbench results in the database, scoring 593 in single-core and 1709 in multi-core, but no direct comparison is recorded for that test suite.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i5-2400S also has 4 cores but only 4 threads. This means the Xeon can handle twice as many simultaneous threads, which contributes to its multi-core performance advantage.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon X3470 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-2400S does not support ECC memory. This makes the Xeon a more suitable option for server or workstation environments where data integrity is critical.

Q: What is the difference in their manufacturing process?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 is built on a 45 nm process node, while the Intel Core i5-2400S uses a 32 nm process node. The smaller 32 nm node allows the Core i5 to have a higher transistor count of 1,160 million compared to 774 million for the Xeon, despite having a smaller die size of 216 mm² versus 296 mm².

Q: Which processor has a higher thermal design power (TDP)?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 has a TDP of 95 watts. The Intel Core i5-2400S has a TDP of 65 watts. The Core i5-2400S consumes significantly less power, which is a clear advantage for systems where heat output and energy efficiency are priorities.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations and target different market segments, which explains their divergent characteristics. The Intel Xeon X3470 uses the Nehalem architecture, specifically the Lynnfield codename, and is classified as a Xeon processor for the server and workstation market. It was released in September 2009. The Intel Core i5-2400S uses the Sandy Bridge architecture, with the same Sandy Bridge codename, and is a desktop processor released in January 2011.

The manufacturing process differs substantially. The Xeon X3470 is fabricated on a 45 nm process, while the Core i5-2400S uses a more advanced 32 nm process. This allows the Core i5 to pack 1,160 million transistors into a smaller die size of 216 mm², whereas the Xeon has 774 million transistors on a larger 296 mm² die. The newer process also contributes to the Core i5's lower power consumption.

Cache configurations also differ. Both processors have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the shared L3 cache is larger on the Xeon X3470 at 8 MB, compared to 6 MB on the Core i5-2400S. This larger cache pool can benefit workloads that repeatedly access the same data.

Memory support shows another key distinction. The Xeon X3470 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-2400S does not. Both support DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Xeon has a recorded memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while no such figure is recorded for the Core i5.

PCI Express support also differs by generation. The Xeon X3470 provides PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU. The Core i5-2400S provides PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes, offering a newer standard with higher potential bandwidth. Additionally, the Core i5-2400S includes integrated graphics in the form of Intel HD 2000, while the Xeon X3470 has no integrated graphics listed.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Xeon X3470 wins in every single measured category. It has a clean sweep with 5 wins out of 5 head-to-head comparisons. The Xeon leads in multi-core tests across all three Cinebench versions (R15, R20, and R23), as well as in single-core tests for Cinebench R20 and R23. The performance advantage is remarkably consistent, ranging from 9.5% to 9.8% depending on the specific workload.

The Core i5-2400S does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. However, it does have a clear advantage in power efficiency. With a TDP of 65 watts compared to 95 watts for the Xeon, the Core i5-2400S draws significantly less power. This makes it a more suitable choice for systems where cooling is limited, energy costs are a concern, or silent operation is desired. The Core i5 also benefits from a newer PCIe Gen 3 interface and integrated graphics, which could simplify system builds that do not require a discrete GPU.

For pure computational throughput, the Xeon X3470 is the clear winner. Its 8 threads versus 4 threads give it a structural advantage in multi-threaded applications. For users running heavily threaded workloads such as video rendering, scientific simulations, or database operations, the Xeon's higher multi-core scores would translate directly into faster completion times. The single-core advantage, though smaller in percentage terms, also favors the Xeon across all recorded tests.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Xeon X3470 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-2400S has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clock speeds are 2.93 GHz for the Xeon and 2.50 GHz for the Core i5. Boost clock speeds are 3.60 GHz for the Xeon and 3.30 GHz for the Core i5. The Xeon runs at higher clocks in both states.

Thermal design power differs by 30 watts: the Xeon is rated at 95 watts, while the Core i5 is rated at 65 watts. They use different sockets: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1156, while the Core i5 uses Intel Socket 1155. These sockets are not interchangeable, so motherboard compatibility is exclusive to each platform.

The architecture and codename are different: Nehalem with Lynnfield for the Xeon versus Sandy Bridge with Sandy Bridge for the Core i5. The process node is 45 nm for the Xeon and 32 nm for the Core i5. Transistor counts are 774 million and 1,160 million, respectively. Die sizes are 296 mm² and 216 mm².

Cache sizes differ only at the L3 level. Both have 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core. The Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i5 has 6 MB. ECC memory support is present on the Xeon but absent on the Core i5. PCIe support is Gen 2 with 16 lanes on the Xeon and Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the Core i5. Integrated graphics are absent on the Xeon and present as Intel HD 2000 on the Core i5.

Memory bandwidth is recorded at 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon, with no figure listed for the Core i5. The market segments differ: Server/Workstation for the Xeon, Desktop for the Core i5. The launch MSRP for the Xeon was $589, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core i5. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SLBJH for the Xeon and SR00S for the Core i5.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results show a consistent and decisive victory for the Intel Xeon X3470 across all five recorded tests. The largest percentage win is 9.8%, which occurs in four of the five tests. The smallest win is 9.5%, seen in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon X3470 scores 287 against 262 for the Core i5-2400S. This is a 9.5% difference, the narrowest margin in the entire comparison. Even at its smallest, the Xeon still maintains a commanding lead of 25 points.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the Xeon scoring 1199 versus 1092 for the Core i5, a 9.8% advantage. This translates to a 107-point gap. The same 9.8% margin appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the Xeon scores 169 against 154, a 15-point difference.

Cinebench R23 multi-core results continue the pattern. The Xeon scores 2857, while the Core i5 scores 2601, a 9.8% lead that amounts to 256 points. Cinebench R23 single-core also shows a 9.8% difference: 403 for the Xeon versus 367 for the Core i5, a 36-point gap.

The consistency of the performance delta is notable. Whether the workload is single-core or multi-core, and regardless of the Cinebench version, the Xeon X3470 maintains roughly a 9.5% to 9.8% advantage. This suggests that the Xeon's higher clock speeds (2.93 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost versus 2.50 GHz and 3.30 GHz) and its additional threads provide a uniform performance uplift across different types of rendering tasks. The Core i5-2400S never comes within striking distance in any recorded benchmark, and its wins total remains at zero.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon X3470 is the faster processor in every benchmark recorded in the database. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons with a performance edge between 9.5% and 9.8%. Users who prioritize raw computational throughput should choose the Xeon X3470 without hesitation. Its 8 threads, higher base and boost clocks, and larger 8 MB L3 cache give it a decisive advantage in both single-threaded and multi-threaded Cinebench workloads.

The Intel Core i5-2400S does have legitimate strengths, but they lie outside the benchmark results. Its 65 watt TDP makes it far more energy-efficient than the 95 watt Xeon. It also offers a newer PCIe Gen 3 interface, integrated Intel HD 2000 graphics, and a smaller 32 nm manufacturing process. These features make it an attractive option for a low-power desktop build where integrated graphics can eliminate the need for a separate GPU and where energy consumption is a primary concern.

For server and workstation applications, the Xeon X3470 is the obvious pick. It supports ECC memory, which the Core i5 does not, and its higher multi-core scores benefit workloads like rendering, simulation, and data processing. The Xeon also carries a launch MSRP of $589, reflecting its original positioning as a higher-end part.

For a general desktop user who does not need ECC memory and wants to minimize power draw, the Core i5-2400S offers a balanced package with its integrated graphics and lower TDP. However, on pure performance metrics, the Xeon X3470 wins every recorded test, and that is the defining fact of this comparison.