CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5482 and Intel Core i5-3320M occupy different corners of the processor market, yet benchmark results place them nearly level in average score. The Xeon X5482, a server/workstation part from the Core 2 generation, edges out the mobile Ivy Bridge chip in every recorded Cinebench test. The data shows a consistent, narrow lead for the older Xeon, with wins across all five head-to-head benchmarks. However, the Core i5-3320M counters with lower power consumption, a smaller process node, and integrated graphics, making the choice between them a matter of platform priorities rather than raw performance dominance.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon X5482 wins on raw compute in every benchmark category where both processors have recorded scores. In multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon’s four physical cores give it an advantage over the Core i5’s two cores, even though the i5 supports four threads. The Cinebench R23 multi-core test shows the Xeon scoring 2341 against the i5’s 2258, a 3.7% gap. Single-core performance also favors the Xeon, with a 330 score in Cinebench R23 single-core versus 318 for the i5, a 3.8% difference. These margins are slim but consistent, indicating that the Xeon holds a slight edge in both lightly-threaded and fully-threaded scenarios.

The Core i5-3320M wins on efficiency and platform suitability. Its 35W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon’s 150W, making it suitable for mobile systems where thermal and power budgets are tight. The i5 also integrates Intel HD 4000 graphics, eliminating the need for a separate GPU in basic display tasks. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a dedicated graphics card. For users prioritizing portability or a compact build, the i5’s feature set is the clear winner, even if its benchmark scores trail slightly.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras. The Xeon X5482 uses the Core 2 architecture with the Harpertown codename, built on a 45 nm process. It packs 820 million transistors across a die size of 2x 107 mm². The Core i5-3320M uses the newer Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process with a die size of 118 mm². The process node difference is significant: 45 nm versus 22 nm, which explains the i5’s lower power draw despite its smaller transistor count (not listed for the i5).

Cache layouts also diverge. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache. The Core i5 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. This structural difference means the i5 relies on a shared L3 pool for inter-core communication, while the Xeon uses its larger per-die L2. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core i5. Memory support for the Xeon is listed as DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, while the i5’s memory support is not specified in the data pack.

The socket and market segment further separate them. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 771 and targets server/workstation systems, while the i5 uses Intel BGA 1023 and targets mobile devices. The Xeon’s release date is 2007-11-10, and the i5’s is 2012-05-31, making the i5 nearly five years newer. The Xeon’s production status is end-of-life, while the i5’s status is not listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The Xeon X5482 leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 138 versus the i5-3320M’s 133, a 3.8% advantage. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R23 single-core, with the Xeon at 330 and the i5 at 318.

Q: Does the Core i5-3320M have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i5-3320M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Xeon X5482 has no integrated graphics, so a separate GPU is required for display output.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon X5482 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-3320M does not list ECC as a feature.

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare?

A: The Xeon wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 235 against the i5’s 227, a 3.5% lead. In R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 983 versus 948, a 3.7% lead. In R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2341 versus 2258, also a 3.7% lead.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Both rank at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs. The Xeon has an average benchmark score of 805, and the i5 has an average score of 803, a 0.3% difference in the Xeon’s favor.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Xeon X5482 has a TDP of 150W, while the Core i5-3320M has a TDP of 35W. The i5 consumes significantly less power, making it more suitable for mobile or low-power systems.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X5482 | Intel Core i5-3320M |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.60 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.30 GHz |

| TDP | 150W | 35W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 771 | Intel BGA 1023 |

| Architecture | Core 2 | Ivy Bridge |

| Codename | Harpertown | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 22 nm |

| Transistors | 820 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 2x 107 mm² | 118 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 6 MB (per die) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | None | 3 MB (shared) |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2007-11-10 | 2012-05-31 |

| Launch MSRP | $1279 | Not listed |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data shows a uniform pattern: the Xeon X5482 wins every recorded test, but by margins under 4%. The largest win comes in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Xeon’s 330 beats the i5’s 318 by 3.8%. The same 3.8% delta appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, with scores of 138 and 133. Multi-core tests show slightly smaller leads. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 235 against 227, a 3.5% win. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows a 3.7% lead (983 vs 948), and Cinebench R23 multi-core also shows a 3.7% lead (2341 vs 2258).

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Across all five head-to-head tests, the Xeon’s advantage never drops below 3.5% or rises above 3.8%. This suggests a fixed performance gap, likely stemming from the Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.20 GHz versus the i5’s 2.60 GHz base and 3.30 GHz boost. The i5’s boost clock reaches higher than the Xeon’s fixed clock, but in sustained workloads, the Xeon’s four physical cores provide a steadier throughput.

The i5’s only additional benchmark is Geekbench, where it scores 1146 multi-core and 589 single-core. The Xeon has no Geekbench scores in the data pack, so a direct comparison on that test is not possible. However, the i5’s average benchmark score of 803 sits just 0.3% below the Xeon’s 805, reinforcing that the performance gap is narrow overall.

The Verdict

From the data, the Intel Xeon X5482 is the better choice for anyone prioritizing raw compute in a server or workstation environment. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins of 3.5-3.8%. Its four cores, 3.20 GHz base clock, and ECC memory support make it suited for multi-threaded workloads where reliability and consistent performance matter. The launch MSRP of $1279 reflects its workstation positioning, though it is now end-of-life.

The Intel Core i5-3320M is the better choice for mobile or power-constrained systems. Its 35W TDP is less than a quarter of the Xeon’s 150W, and it includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. While it loses every head-to-head benchmark, its scores are within 3.8% of the Xeon’s, making the performance difference negligible for many tasks. The i5’s 22 nm process node and 3 MB shared L3 cache also indicate a more modern design, even if its core count is halved.

The percentile rankings tell the same story. Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 0.3%. Neither chip offers a decisive performance advantage. The selection hinges on platform: the Xeon for socket 771 server boards with ECC support, the i5 for BGA 1023 mobile boards with integrated graphics. Users with a specific motherboard or power budget will find the choice already made for them; those starting fresh should weigh the Xeon’s marginal compute lead against the i5’s massive efficiency gains.