Intel Core i5-3230M vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data places these two processors in an unusually tight contest. Across the five shared benchmark tests, the Intel Core i5-3230M and the Intel Xeon X5460 finish with an average benchmark score of 754 each, and their percentile ranking against all CPUs in the database is identical at the 20th percentile. The closest rival to both is the Intel Core i5-4250U, which scores 756, a delta of negative 0.2 percent for the i5-3230M and negative 0.2 percent for the Xeon X5460. The Intel Xeon E5450 also scores 756, while the Intel Core i3-5020U reaches 757. These figures show both processors sitting in a dense cluster of comparable performance, with less than half a percent separating the entire group.

Looking at the direct head-to-head results, the Xeon X5460 claims three wins while the i5-3230M claims two. The most notable victories for the Xeon come in the multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 920 against the i5's 917, a delta of negative 0.3 percent. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2191 against 2184, again a delta of negative 0.3 percent. The Xeon also takes the single-core Cinebench R23 test, scoring 309 versus 308. These margins are tiny, but they are consistent: the Xeon edges ahead in three of the five tests.

The i5-3230M's wins are recorded in Cinebench R15 multi-core and Cinebench R20 single-core. In R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 220, a perfect tie, with the winner designation going to the i5-3230M and a delta of 0 percent. In R20 single-core, both also score exactly 129, again a tie, with the i5-3230M receiving the win. The Xeon's third win in R23 single-core, at 309 versus 308, is the only test where one processor holds a clear single-point advantage. The overall picture is one of near parity, with the Xeon holding a slight edge in the longer, more demanding multi-threaded workloads.

It is importantly the i5-3230M has additional benchmark entries in the database that the Xeon does not share. The i5 records a Geekbench multi-core score of 1018 and a Geekbench single-core score of 505. These are not part of the head-to-head comparison because the Xeon lacks corresponding Geekbench results, but they contribute to the i5's overall average score of 754, which matches the Xeon's average exactly. The Xeon's average is built entirely from its five Cinebench results, which sum to a slightly higher raw total but average out to the same 754 due to rounding.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: Both processors have an identical average benchmark score of 754. The Intel Core i5-3230M and the Intel Xeon X5460 sit at the same 20th percentile against all CPUs in the database.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 scores 2191, while the Intel Core i5-3230M scores 2184. The Xeon leads by 7 points, a delta of negative 0.3 percent.

Q: Are there any tests where the two processors tie exactly?

A: Yes. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both score exactly 220. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both score exactly 129. In both cases, the win is recorded for the Intel Core i5-3230M with a delta of 0 percent.

Q: What is the closest rival to these two processors?

A: The Intel Core i5-4250U has an average score of 756, which is negative 0.2 percent relative to the i5-3230M and negative 0.2 percent relative to the Xeon X5460. The Intel Xeon E5450 also scores 756, and the Intel Core i3-5020U scores 757.

Q: Does the Xeon X5460 win every test it participates in?

A: No. The Xeon wins three of the five head-to-head tests, but it ties in the other two. The i5-3230M is designated the winner in the two tied tests, giving it two wins total.

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

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 scores 309, while the Intel Core i5-3230M scores 308. The Xeon leads by a single point, a delta of negative 0.3 percent.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Core i5-3230M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, using a 22 nm process node from Intel. It is a dual-core processor with four threads, meaning it supports hyper-threading. The Xeon X5460, by contrast, uses the Core 2 architecture with the codename Harpertown, built on a 45 nm process node. The Xeon is a true quad-core processor with four threads, so it does not rely on simultaneous multi-threading to reach its thread count. This fundamental difference in core count and process technology explains why the two processors achieve similar results despite very different designs.

The i5-3230M has a die size of 118 mm², while the Xeon X5460 has a die size listed as 2x 107 mm², indicating a dual-die design. The Xeon's transistor count is recorded at 820 million, while the i5-3230M's transistor count is not provided in the database. The Xeon's larger, older 45 nm process and dual-die layout are consistent with its server/workstation market segment, whereas the i5's smaller 22 nm die is designed for mobile computing.

Cache configurations differ significantly. The i5-3230M has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon X5460 also has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but its L2 cache is 6 MB per die, and it has no L3 cache at all. The Xeon's cache is distributed across its two dies, while the i5's L3 cache is shared across the entire processor. This means the i5 relies on a unified L3 pool, while the Xeon depends entirely on its larger L2 slices.

Integrated graphics are present only on the i5-3230M, which includes an Intel HD 4000 GPU. The Xeon X5460 has no integrated graphics, as it is a server/workstation part. The Xeon does support ECC memory, while the i5 does not. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 2 support, while the i5's PCIe capability is not specified in the database.

Specification Differences

The most immediate difference is core count. The i5-3230M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon X5460 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The base clock speeds also differ: the i5 runs at 2.60 GHz with a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Xeon runs at 3.17 GHz with no boost clock listed. The Xeon's higher base clock compensates for its lack of turbo capability, while the i5 relies on its boost headroom.

Thermal design power is a major differentiator. The i5-3230M has a TDP of 35 watts, making it suitable for mobile systems. The Xeon X5460 has a TDP of 120 watts, reflecting its server/workstation orientation and older manufacturing process. The sockets are incompatible: the i5 uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 771.

Memory support differs as well. The i5 supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration. The Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3, with the exact type depending on the motherboard, also in a dual-channel configuration. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. The i5 has a release date of December 31, 2012, while the Xeon was released on November 10, 2007. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i5's production status is not specified.

The Xeon has a recorded launch MSRP of $1172. The i5-3230M has no launch MSRP listed in the database. The part numbers also differ: SR0WY for the i5, and SLANPSLBBA for the Xeon.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X5460 wins in the longer multi-threaded workloads. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 920, three points ahead of the i5's 917. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2191, seven points ahead. It also wins the single-core R23 test by a single point. These results suggest the Xeon holds a slight advantage in sustained rendering and computational tasks that stress all cores simultaneously, likely due to its higher base clock and additional physical cores.

The Intel Core i5-3230M wins in the two tests where the scores are identical. In Cinebench R15 multi-core and Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors score 220 and 129 respectively. The database records these as wins for the i5, but they are effectively ties. The i5's advantage is its efficiency: it achieves the same performance at a 35 watt TDP versus the Xeon's 120 watts, and it includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks. The i5 also has a smaller footprint, with a 22 nm process versus the Xeon's 45 nm.

For mobile or compact systems, the i5-3230M is the only viable option, as the Xeon's socket, TDP, and lack of integrated graphics make it unsuitable for such use. For a server or workstation where power draw is less of a concern, the Xeon's slightly higher multi-core scores and ECC memory support give it a narrow edge. The Geekbench results for the i5, 1018 multi-core and 505 single-core, are not directly comparable to the Xeon, but they demonstrate that the i5 is a capable general-purpose processor in its own right.

The Verdict

The data shows two processors that are effectively equal in raw performance, with an average benchmark score of 754 for both. The Xeon X5460 wins three of the five head-to-head tests, but its margins are minuscule: no more than 7 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core, and a single point in R23 single-core. The i5-3230M wins the two tests that are exact ties, and it matches the Xeon's performance in every category while drawing significantly less power.

The choice between these two depends entirely on the use case. The Xeon X5460 is the pick for a server or workstation where ECC memory is required, where the higher 120 watt TDP is acceptable, and where the slightly better multi-core scores in Cinebench R20 and R23 matter. It also has the advantage of a recorded launch MSRP of $1172, though the i5 has no comparable listing.

The i5-3230M is the pick for any mobile system or any scenario where power efficiency is a priority. It matches the Xeon's performance in Cinebench R15 and R20 single-core, comes within 0.3 percent in the other tests, and includes integrated graphics. Its 35 watt TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's 120 watt figure. For users who need a capable processor in a laptop or a low-power build, the i5-3230M delivers the same benchmark results with far fewer system requirements. For users who need ECC support and a quad-core design, the Xeon is the only choice. Both processors sit at the 20th percentile of all CPUs, meaning neither is a high-performance part by modern standards, but within their respective contexts, each fulfills a distinct role.