Intel Core i5-3230M vs Intel Xeon E5520 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher multi-core Cinebench R23 score?

A: The Intel Core i5-3230M scores 2184, while the Intel Xeon E5520 scores 2155. The i5-3230M leads by 1.3%.

Q: How does the single-core performance compare between the two?

A: The i5-3230M wins in both Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests. In R20, it scores 129 against the Xeon's 127, a 1.6% advantage; in R23, it scores 308 versus 304, a 1.3% lead.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each processor?

A: The i5-3230M has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon E5520 has 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon E5520 supports ECC memory, while the i5-3230M does not.

Q: What are the TDP ratings for these CPUs?

A: The i5-3230M has a TDP of 35 watts. The Xeon E5520 has a TDP of 80 watts.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon E5520 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The i5-3230M has 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-3230M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, while the Intel Xeon E5520 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown. This architectural split is reflected in the manufacturing process: the i5-3230M uses a 22 nm node, whereas the Xeon E5520 uses a 45 nm node. The die sizes differ accordingly, with the i5-3230M measuring 118 mm² and the Xeon E5520 measuring 263 mm². The Xeon's larger die also contains a much higher transistor count at 731 million, while the i5's transistor count is not documented in the database.

The core configurations are fundamentally different. The i5-3230M is a dual-core part with Hyper-Threading, giving it 4 threads. The Xeon E5520 is a quad-core part with Hyper-Threading, yielding 8 threads. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The shared L3 cache, however, favors the Xeon: 8 MB versus 3 MB on the i5.

Memory architecture also diverges. Both support DDR3 memory, but the i5-3230M uses a dual-channel memory bus, while the Xeon E5520 uses a triple-channel memory bus. The Xeon also includes ECC memory support and PCIe Gen 2 connectivity, features absent from the i5. The i5-3230M integrates Intel HD 4000 graphics; the Xeon E5520 has no integrated graphics at all.

Market positioning further separates these parts. The i5-3230M is a mobile processor on Intel Socket G2 (988B), released in late 2012. The Xeon E5520 is a server/workstation processor on Intel Socket 1366, released in early 2009 and now marked as end-of-life. Clock speeds differ too: the i5-3230M has a base clock of 2.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Xeon E5520 has a base clock of 2.27 GHz and a boost clock of 2.53 GHz.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, though narrow, victory for the Intel Core i5-3230M across all five shared benchmark tests. The i5-3230M wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with the Xeon E5520 taking zero wins.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-3230M scores 220 against the Xeon's 217, a delta of 1.4%. This small margin persists in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5 scores 917 and the Xeon scores 905, a 1.3% difference. The multi-core results are notable because the Xeon has twice as many physical cores. Despite the 4-core, 8-thread advantage, the Xeon cannot outpace the newer dual-core i5 in these rendering workloads, likely due to the i5's higher clock speeds and more efficient Ivy Bridge architecture.

Single-core performance follows the same pattern. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3230M records 129 points, while the Xeon E5520 records 127 points, giving the i5 a 1.6% edge. The largest relative win for the i5 comes in this single-core R20 test. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5 scores 308 versus the Xeon's 304, again a 1.3% margin.

The Geekbench results are only available for the i5-3230M, which scores 1018 in multi-core and 505 in single-core. The Xeon E5520 lacks Geekbench entries in the database, so direct comparison there is not possible. Overall, the i5-3230M's average benchmark score is 754, while the Xeon E5520's is 742, a difference of roughly 1.6% in the i5's favor.

The percentile rankings for both CPUs sit at the 20th percentile among all CPUs in the database. This means both processors occupy the same relative performance tier, despite their architectural differences. The nearest rivals to the i5-3230M include the Intel Xeon X5460 with an identical average score of 754, the Intel Core i5-4250U at 756, and the Intel Xeon E5450 at 756. The nearest rivals to the Xeon E5520 include the AMD Phenom II X4 B97 at 741, the Intel Core i5-670 at 741, and the Intel Core i7-860S at 740.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every core specification category. The i5-3230M has 2 cores and 4 threads; the Xeon E5520 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the i5 and 2.27 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 3.20 GHz versus 2.53 GHz, respectively.

The TDP is a major differentiator: the i5-3230M draws 35 watts, while the Xeon E5520 draws 80 watts. This makes the i5 far more power-efficient, which aligns with its mobile market segment. The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket G2 (988B) for the i5, Intel Socket 1366 for the Xeon.

Architecture and process node differ as noted: Ivy Bridge at 22 nm versus Nehalem (Gainestown) at 45 nm. The die sizes are 118 mm² for the i5 and 263 mm² for the Xeon. The Xeon's transistor count is 731 million; the i5's is not recorded.

Cache specifications diverge in L3 size: 3 MB shared for the i5, 8 MB shared for the Xeon. Both have identical L1 and L2 cache per core. Memory support shows a dual-channel bus on the i5 versus a triple-channel bus on the Xeon. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe Gen 2 is listed only for the Xeon. Integrated graphics exist only on the i5, in the form of Intel HD 4000.

The release dates place these parts in different eras: the i5-3230M launched in late 2012, while the Xeon E5520 launched in early 2009. The Xeon is officially end-of-life; the i5's production status is not listed. The part numbers are SR0WY for the i5 and SLBFD for the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3230M wins every benchmark recorded in the head-to-head comparison. This includes all multi-core tests: Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. It also wins both single-core tests: Cinebench R20 and R23. The i5's wins range from 1.3% to 1.6% over the Xeon, so the victories are consistent but not overwhelming.

The i5-3230M is clearly the better choice for workloads that depend on single-threaded performance, given its higher base and boost clocks and its 1.6% lead in single-core R20. Its lower TDP of 35 watts also makes it suitable for thermally constrained environments, such as laptops or compact systems. The integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics add functionality that the Xeon completely lacks, making the i5 a more self-contained solution for basic graphical output.

The Intel Xeon E5520, despite losing all benchmarks, holds advantages in structural specifications. Its 4 cores and 8 threads provide twice the physical core count, which may benefit heavily threaded workloads that are not captured by the Cinebench tests in the database. The 8 MB L3 cache is more than double the i5's 3 MB, which could aid in cache-sensitive server workloads. The triple-channel memory bus offers higher theoretical memory bandwidth than the dual-channel bus on the i5, and ECC memory support makes the Xeon appropriate for error-correcting memory environments. PCIe Gen 2 connectivity further suits server and workstation expansion needs.

The Xeon's higher TDP of 80 watts indicates it is designed for sustained, multi-core server loads rather than mobile efficiency. Its end-of-life status suggests it is a legacy part, but its specifications still target a different use case than the i5.

The Verdict

The benchmark data points to a clear overall winner: the Intel Core i5-3230M outperforms the Intel Xeon E5520 in every measured test. The i5 leads by 1.4% in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1.3% in R20 multi-core, 1.6% in R20 single-core, 1.3% in R23 multi-core, and 1.3% in R23 single-core. Its average benchmark score of 754 exceeds the Xeon's 742. For anyone choosing between these two based purely on processing speed, the i5-3230M is the superior option.

The i5-3230M is the right pick for mobile or power-sensitive applications. Its 35 watt TDP, integrated graphics, and higher clock speeds make it a practical choice for laptops and compact devices. Its performance in single-core tests, where it holds a 1.6% edge, also favors it for everyday productivity tasks and applications that do not scale well across many cores.

The Xeon E5520 should be selected when its non-performance specifications matter more than raw benchmark scores. Its 4 cores and 8 threads, 8 MB L3 cache, triple-channel memory bus, and ECC support make it suitable for server or workstation deployments where memory reliability and bandwidth are critical. The fact that it trails the i5 by only 1.3% to 1.6% in multi-core tests, despite being older and built on a 45 nm process, indicates that its additional cores help close the gap. However, the data shows no scenario where the Xeon wins a benchmark, so its value lies entirely in platform features rather than measured speed.

In summary, the i5-3230M is the faster processor in all recorded tests, and it should be the default choice for general-purpose or mobile computing. The Xeon E5520 is a niche part for legacy server platforms that require ECC memory and triple-channel bandwidth, accepting a small performance deficit in exchange for those capabilities.