Intel Core i5-2500S vs Intel Xeon W5590 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data for these two processors is remarkably consistent across the Cinebench suite. In Cinebench R15 multicore, both the Intel Xeon W5590 and the Intel Core i5-2500S post identical scores of 288. The delta between them is exactly zero percent. The Xeon W5590 is listed as the nominal winner, but that designation reflects the tie-breaking logic in the database rather than any actual performance advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the pattern holds perfectly. Both parts score 1204, again with a zero percent difference. The Xeon W5590 is credited with the win, but the benchmark results indicate a dead heat. Single-core performance in R20 tells the same story: both processors deliver 169 points. The delta remains at zero. The Xeon W5590 is again marked as the winner, yet the numbers show no separation whatsoever.

Cinebench R23 multicore continues the trend with both processors reaching 2867 points. Once more, the delta is zero percent, and the Xeon W5590 is recorded as the winner. The single-core R23 test shows both parts at 404 points, with a zero percent delta. This is the fifth consecutive test where the two CPUs produce identical results.

The head-to-head table records five wins for the Xeon W5590 and zero for the Core i5-2500S. However, a closer reading of the data shows that every one of those wins is a tie. The delta percentage in each case is zero. This is not a case of one processor outperforming the other; it is a case of two processors landing on exactly the same scores across every shared benchmark.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The Xeon W5590 has an average benchmark score of 986, while the Core i5-2500S averages 1004. That is a difference of 18 points, or roughly 1.8 percent in favor of the i5-2500S. Despite the identical Cinebench results, the i5-2500S edges ahead in the overall average because the database includes additional Geekbench results for that part. The Geekbench multicore score for the i5-2500S is 1511, and the single-core score is 582. The Xeon W5590 does not have corresponding Geekbench entries in the database, so its average is computed solely from the five Cinebench tests.

Both processors sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs in the database. That places them in the same performance tier, well below the high-end parts but far from the bottom of the field. The nearest rivals for the Xeon W5590 include the Intel Core i7-875K with an average score of 984 and a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core i3-4130T also at 984 with 0.2 percent, the Intel Xeon X3470 at 983 with 0.3 percent, and the Intel Core i3-4370T at 983 with 0.3 percent. The nearest rivals for the Core i5-2500S include the Intel Core i5-4300M at 1004 with zero percent delta, the Intel Core i7-5600U at 1005 with negative 0.1 percent, the Intel Core i7-2630QM at 1005 with negative 0.1 percent, and the AMD FX-9830P at 1006 with negative 0.2 percent. These rival sets confirm that both processors occupy essentially the same performance neighborhood, with the i5-2500S holding a slight average edge.

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unusual situation: two processors from different generations, different sockets, and different market segments that produce identical scores on every test they share. The Xeon W5590, a server and workstation part from the Nehalem generation, matches the Core i5-2500S, a desktop part from the Sandy Bridge generation, across five Cinebench workloads. There is no meaningful performance difference between them in these measurements.

For workloads that resemble the Cinebench suite, which is heavily threaded rendering, the choice between these two parts comes down to factors other than raw score. The Xeon W5590 supports 8 threads through Hyper-Threading, while the Core i5-2500S has 4 threads. Yet the recorded scores show no benefit from the additional threads. This suggests that the Cinebench workloads in question are not scaling with thread count, or that the architectural differences between the two parts offset the Xeon's thread advantage.

Users who prioritize lower power consumption should note the power figures in the database. The Xeon W5590 has a thermal design power of 130 watts, while the Core i5-2500S is rated at 65 watts. That is exactly half the thermal envelope. For systems where cooling and power delivery are constrained, the i5-2500S is the more efficient choice. The Xeon W5590 requires a more substantial cooling solution and a motherboard capable of feeding its higher power draw.

Users who need error-correcting memory should choose the Xeon W5590. The database lists ECC memory support as present on the Xeon and absent on the Core i5. The Xeon also supports triple-channel DDR3 with a memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB per second, while the i5-2500S uses dual-channel DDR3 with no bandwidth figure recorded. For memory-heavy workloads with large datasets, the Xeon's wider memory path could matter even if the benchmark scores are tied.

The integrated graphics situation is another differentiator. The Core i5-2500S includes Intel HD 2000 graphics, while the Xeon W5590 has no integrated graphics. A system built around the Xeon requires a discrete graphics card. A system built around the i5-2500S can operate without one, which lowers the total system cost and complexity for basic tasks.

The launch MSRP of the Xeon W5590 was $1600. The Core i5-2500S has no launch MSRP recorded in the database. That price gap reflects the different market positioning: the Xeon was a premium workstation part, while the i5 was a mainstream desktop processor. The performance data, however, shows that the two parts are equivalent in the measured workloads.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon W5590 is built on the Nehalem architecture, with the codename Gainestown. It is manufactured on a 45 nanometer process at Intel's foundry. The die contains 731 million transistors on a 263 square millimeter die. The Core i5-2500S uses the Sandy Bridge architecture, also from Intel, on a 32 nanometer process. The die holds 1,160 million transistors on a 216 square millimeter die. The smaller process node gives the i5-2500S a transistor density advantage: more transistors in a smaller area, which typically translates to better power efficiency.

Both processors have 4 physical cores. The Xeon W5590 supports 8 threads through simultaneous multithreading, while the Core i5-2500S has 4 threads with no multithreading support. The cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The Xeon has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i5 has 6 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache is consistent with its server positioning, where larger working sets are common.

Clock speeds differ in an interesting way. The Xeon W5590 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz. The Core i5-2500S has a base clock of 2.70 GHz and a boost clock of 3.70 GHz. The i5-2500S has a lower base clock but a higher boost clock, which means it can reach a higher peak frequency under light single-threaded loads. The Xeon has a higher base clock, which keeps its performance floor higher under sustained all-core loads. The identical benchmark scores suggest that these clock differences cancel out in practice.

Memory support is where the two parts diverge most clearly. The Xeon W5590 supports triple-channel DDR3 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB per second. The Core i5-2500S supports dual-channel DDR3, and the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for it. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is critical for servers and workstations that need to detect and correct memory errors. The Core i5 does not support ECC.

PCIe support also differs. The Xeon W5590 uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i5-2500S uses PCIe Gen 3 with 16 lanes available from the CPU. The newer PCIe standard on the i5-2500S provides more bandwidth for expansion cards, though the practical impact depends on the workload and the peripherals in use.

The Xeon W5590 uses the Intel Socket 1366 platform, while the Core i5-2500S uses Intel Socket 1155. These sockets are not interchangeable, so the motherboard choice is locked to the processor choice. The Xeon is part of the Gainestown generation of Xeon processors, while the i5-2500S is part of the Sandy Bridge generation of Core i5 processors.

The Xeon W5590 has a 130 watt TDP, while the Core i5-2500S has a 65 watt TDP. The difference is substantial and reflects the different design goals: the Xeon prioritizes sustained server workloads with a high power envelope, while the i5-2500S prioritizes efficiency for desktop use. The Xeon's production status is end-of-life, as is the Core i5-2500S, so neither is a current-generation product.

The Xeon W5590 has a multiplier that is locked, and the Core i5-2500S also has a locked multiplier. Neither processor supports overclocking through multiplier adjustment. The part numbers are SLBGE for the Xeon and SR009 for the Core i5.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in single-core workloads?

A: The recorded data shows no difference. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both score 169. In Cinebench R23 single-core, both score 404. The delta is zero percent in both tests.

Q: Does the Xeon W5590's 8 threads give it an advantage over the Core i5-2500S's 4 threads?

A: The benchmark data does not show an advantage. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multicore tests, both processors produce identical scores. The additional threads do not translate to higher measured performance in these workloads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W5590 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-2500S does not. This makes the Xeon the appropriate choice for systems that require error-correcting memory.

Q: What is the memory bandwidth difference between the two?

A: The Xeon W5590 supports triple-channel DDR3 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB per second. The Core i5-2500S supports dual-channel DDR3, but the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for it.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i5-2500S includes Intel HD 2000 integrated graphics. The Xeon W5590 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete graphics card for display output.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon W5590 has an average benchmark score of 986. The Core i5-2500S has an average benchmark score of 1004. The i5-2500S holds a small edge, driven by its additional Geekbench results which show a multicore score of 1511 and a single-core score of 582.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W5590 wins in scenarios that require server-grade features. Its ECC memory support makes it suitable for workstations and servers where data integrity is paramount. The triple-channel memory controller with 32.0 GB per second of bandwidth provides a wider path for memory-intensive workloads, even though the benchmark scores do not reflect a performance advantage in the Cinebench suite. The higher base clock of 3.33 GHz means the Xeon maintains a higher performance floor under sustained load, which can matter in long-running server processes. The 8 MB of shared L3 cache gives it more cache capacity for workloads with larger working sets.

The Core i5-2500S wins in scenarios that prioritize power efficiency and platform integration. Its 65 watt TDP is exactly half of the Xeon's 130 watt TDP, making it the clear choice for compact or passively cooled systems. The integrated Intel HD 2000 graphics eliminate the need for a separate graphics card in basic desktop tasks. The PCIe Gen 3 support with 16 CPU lanes provides faster expansion bandwidth than the Xeon's PCIe Gen 2. The higher boost clock of 3.70 GHz gives the i5-2500S a higher peak frequency for lightly threaded workloads, even though the recorded single-core scores are identical.

The database records five head-to-head wins for the Xeon W5590, but every one of those wins is a tie with a zero percent delta. The Core i5-2500S has zero recorded wins, yet its average benchmark score is higher at 1004 versus 986. This contradiction is explained by the additional Geekbench data available for the i5-2500S. The two processors are performance equals in the Cinebench tests, and the overall average slightly favors the i5-2500S.

For a system builder choosing between these two end-of-life processors, the decision rests on platform requirements rather than measured performance. If the system needs ECC memory, triple-channel bandwidth, or the reliability features of a server platform, the Xeon W5590 is the right part. If the system needs low power consumption, integrated graphics, or a modern PCIe implementation, the Core i5-2500S is the better fit. In raw compute performance, the data shows no meaningful difference between them.