CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon D-1520 and Intel Core i5-3330 both land at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, yet their average benchmark scores differ by only 9 points (1209 vs 1200). That overall parity masks a consistent pattern in the head-to-head data: the Xeon D-1520 wins every Cinebench test, while the Core i5-3330 counters with higher base and boost clocks and a desktop-oriented feature set. The following analysis breaks down where each processor holds an edge, the architectural reasons behind those edges, and what the benchmark numbers mean for real-world workloads.

Where Each One Wins

The head-to-head benchmark table is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon D-1520 wins all five recorded Cinebench tests, with a uniform deltaPct of 19.9% across every workload. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 421 against the i5-3330's 351. The R20 multicore result follows the same pattern at 1755 vs 1464. Single-core tests show the same relative gap, 247 vs 206 in R20 single-core and 590 vs 492 in R23 single-core. The R23 multicore run closes the list at 4179 vs 3486, again exactly 19.9% apart.

The Core i5-3330 wins in no recorded benchmark, but its strengths appear outside the Cinebench suite. It carries integrated graphics (Intel HD 2500), which the Xeon D-1520 lacks entirely. For a desktop system that needs display output without a discrete GPU, that is a decisive functional win. The i5-3330 also runs on the Intel Socket 1155 platform, while the Xeon uses Intel BGA 1667, a soldered, non-upgradeable socket. The i5-3330's 77W TDP is higher than the Xeon's 45W, but it pairs with a desktop platform that assumes active cooling and standard motherboard expansion.

The Xeon D-1520's wins are about throughput per watt and multi-threaded scaling. Its 8 threads versus the i5-3330's 4 threads give it a structural advantage in any workload that can use more than four logical processors. The benchmark data confirms that this advantage is consistent, not workload-specific: the same 19.9% delta appears across every Cinebench version and both single-core and multi-core tests.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras. The Xeon D-1520 uses the Broadwell architecture on a 14 nm process node, while the Core i5-3330 uses Ivy Bridge on 22 nm. That process shrink is a major factor in the TDP difference: 45W for the Xeon versus 77W for the i5-3330, despite the Xeon having twice the thread count.

Core counts are identical at 4 physical cores, but the Xeon D-1520 doubles the thread count to 8 via Hyper-Threading. The i5-3330 has 4 threads with no such feature. Cache organization also differs. The Xeon D-1520 provides 1.5 MB of L3 per core, while the i5-3330 has 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon's per-core L1 and L2 are 64 KB and 256 KB per core, matching the i5-3330's per-core allocations, but the L3 arrangement reflects their different target markets: server workloads tend to favor per-core cache isolation, while desktop workloads benefit from a larger shared pool.

Memory support is another split. The Xeon D-1520 supports both DDR3 and DDR4, with ECC memory enabled. The i5-3330 supports only DDR3 and has no ECC capability. Both run dual-channel memory buses. PCIe lane counts differ as well: the Xeon provides 24 Gen 3 lanes, the i5-3330 provides 16 Gen 3 lanes. The Xeon's die is substantially larger at 246 mm² versus 133 mm², and it packs 3,200 million transistors versus no listed transistor count for the i5-3330. The Xeon D-1520 is built for server/workstation duty with a BGA 1667 socket and active production status, while the i5-3330 is a desktop part on Socket 1155 with no production status listed.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-threaded workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon D-1520 wins every multi-core Cinebench test. In R15 multicore, it scores 421 versus 351 for the i5-3330, a 19.9% delta. R20 multicore shows 1755 vs 1464, and R23 multicore shows 4179 vs 3486, both with the same 19.9% gap.

Q: Does the Core i5-3330 have any performance advantage?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon D-1520 winning all five recorded benchmarks, including single-core tests. The i5-3330's higher base clock (3.00 GHz vs 2.20 GHz) and boost clock (3.20 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) do not translate into a single benchmark win.

Q: Can the Core i5-3330 output video without a discrete GPU?

A: Yes. The i5-3330 includes Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics. The Xeon D-1520 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate GPU for display output.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon D-1520 supports ECC memory. It also supports both DDR3 and DDR4, while the i5-3330 supports only DDR3 without ECC.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon D-1520 averages 1209 across all benchmarks, and the i5-3330 averages 1200. Both sit at the 34th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon's nearest rival is the Intel Core i3-8121U at 1209 (0% delta), while the i5-3330's nearest rival is the AMD Athlon PRO 200GE at 1200 (0% delta).

Q: Are these processors on the same socket?

A: No. The Xeon D-1520 uses Intel BGA 1667 (soldered), while the i5-3330 uses Intel Socket 1155. They are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear performance winner: the Intel Xeon D-1520 outperforms the Intel Core i5-3330 by 19.9% in every Cinebench test, from single-core to multi-core and across R15, R20, and R23 versions. That consistency is notable, it is not a case of one processor winning in multi-threaded workloads and the other winning in lightly threaded ones. The Xeon D-1520 wins everywhere.

The Core i5-3330's case rests on platform features rather than raw compute. It offers integrated graphics, a standard desktop socket, and a lower launch-era positioning. For a system that must drive a display without a GPU, the i5-3330 is the only functional choice between the two. The Xeon D-1520's BGA 1667 socket means it is soldered to the board, and its lack of integrated graphics makes it unsuitable for a basic desktop build.

The Xeon D-1520 also wins on power efficiency. Its 45W TDP is nearly half the i5-3330's 77W, yet it delivers 19.9% more performance. That combination of lower power and higher throughput makes it the better choice for always-on servers or workstations where energy costs and thermal load matter. The i5-3330's higher clocks (3.00 GHz base, 3.20 GHz boost) do not help it in the benchmark data, and its 4 threads limit scaling in multi-threaded applications.

For a server or workstation workload that can use 8 threads and does not require integrated graphics, the Xeon D-1520 is the clear pick. For a desktop system that needs integrated display output and does not push multi-threaded performance, the i5-3330 remains viable, but the benchmark data shows no performance scenario where it beats the Xeon.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Xeon D-1520 has 8 threads; the i5-3330 has 4. Base clocks are 2.20 GHz for the Xeon versus 3.00 GHz for the i5-3330, and boost clocks are 2.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz. TDP is 45W for the Xeon and 77W for the i5-3330.

Socket types are different: Intel BGA 1667 for the Xeon, Intel Socket 1155 for the i5-3330. Architecture and process node also differ: Broadwell on 14 nm for the Xeon versus Ivy Bridge on 22 nm for the i5-3330. The Xeon's die is 246 mm² with 3,200 million transistors; the i5-3330's die is 133 mm² with no transistor count listed.

Cache configurations differ in L3: the Xeon D-1520 has 1.5 MB per core, while the i5-3330 has 6 MB shared. Memory support is broader on the Xeon (DDR3 and DDR4) than on the i5-3330 (DDR3 only). ECC memory is available only on the Xeon. PCIe lanes are 24 on the Xeon versus 16 on the i5-3330. The i5-3330 has Intel HD 2500 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none.

Market segments differ: the Xeon D-1520 targets server/workstation, and the i5-3330 targets desktop. Release dates are 2015-03-08 for the Xeon and 2012-09-02 for the i5-3330. The Xeon D-1520 has a launch MSRP of $199 and is still listed as active in production; the i5-3330 has no launch MSRP listed and no production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R15 multicore test opens the head-to-head results with the Xeon D-1520 scoring 421 against the i5-3330's 351. That is a 19.9% margin, and it establishes the pattern for every subsequent test. The R20 multicore run shows the Xeon at 1755 and the i5-3330 at 1464, again 19.9% apart. The R20 single-core test is the closest numeric contest, 247 vs 206, but the percentage gap remains identical at 19.9%.

The R23 suite repeats the same story. Multicore scores are 4179 for the Xeon versus 3486 for the i5-3330, and single-core scores are 590 versus 492. Every test in the head-to-head table lists the Xeon D-1520 as the winner, and the deltaPct is exactly 19.9% in all five cases. The i5-3330 records zero wins.

This uniformity matters for interpretation. The 19.9% delta is not a single-workload artifact; it persists across three different Cinebench versions and across both single-core and multi-core tests. That suggests the performance gap is structural, tied to the Xeon's 8 threads, its 14 nm process, and its cache design, rather than specific to any benchmark's scoring method. The i5-3330's higher clock speeds do not compensate for its 4-thread limit, and the Xeon's per-core L3 arrangement does not hurt it even in single-core tests. The data is consistent: the Xeon D-1520 is the faster processor in every measured scenario.