Intel Core i5-3360M vs Intel Xeon X3440 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data positions the Intel Core i5-3360M and Intel Xeon X3440 at nearly the same performance tier, with the mobile chip holding a consistent, narrow edge across every recorded test. The i5-3360M wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 3.4% to 3.6%. The Xeon X3440 counters with a larger physical footprint: four cores and eight threads versus two cores and four threads, plus a larger shared cache. However, that hardware advantage does not translate into a single benchmark victory. The average benchmark scores tell the same story: the i5-3360M records 835, the Xeon X3440 records 815, a difference of roughly 2.4%. Both CPUs sit at the 22nd percentile among all processors in the database.

For a user choosing between these two, the i5-3360M is the better performer in every measurable workload here. Its wins are modest, between 3.4% and 3.6%, but they are consistent across single-core and multi-core tests. The Xeon X3440 is a server and workstation part with ECC memory support and a much higher 95 W TDP, attributes that matter in reliability-focused builds, but the recorded benchmarks show no performance payoff for that extra power draw. The i5-3360M is also a mobile part with integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, making it a self-contained option for compact systems. The Xeon X3440 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a discrete GPU. The data suggests that for raw compute, the i5-3360M is the stronger choice; for a system requiring ECC memory, the Xeon X3440 is the only one of the two that qualifies.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel design eras. The i5-3360M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process, while the Xeon X3440 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Lynnfield, on a 45 nm process. The die sizes reflect that gap: the i5-3360M measures 118 mm², the Xeon X3440 measures 296 mm² and contains 774 million transistors. The newer process node gives the i5-3360M a substantial efficiency advantage, which shows in the TDP figures: 35 W for the mobile part versus 95 W for the server part.

Core and thread counts differ sharply. The i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon X3440 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon therefore has twice the physical core count and twice the thread count. Cache layouts also differ. Both use 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. The L3 cache is where the Xeon pulls ahead: 8 MB shared versus 3 MB shared on the i5-3360M. The Xeon also supports DDR3 memory with a rated bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s and ECC memory, while the i5-3360M has no memory support details in the database beyond a dual-channel memory bus. The i5-3360M includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics; the Xeon X3440 has no integrated graphics at all.

Clock speeds favor the i5-3360M. Its base clock is 2.80 GHz with a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. The Xeon X3440 runs at 2.53 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost. The i5-3360M is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1023, while the Xeon X3440 uses Intel Socket 1156. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in the database and had a launch MSRP of $215. The i5-3360M has no launch MSRP recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a supported path for either. The Xeon supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU; the i5-3360M has no PCIe data recorded.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-3360M wins every recorded benchmark, so the use-case split is not about raw speed. The Xeon X3440 wins on platform attributes that the benchmarks do not measure. It supports ECC memory, which makes it suitable for servers and workstations where data integrity is critical. It also has a larger 8 MB L3 cache and double the core and thread count, which matters for heavily threaded workloads that scale beyond the two physical cores of the i5-3360M. The benchmark scores here do not show that scaling advantage, but the architectural data indicates the Xeon has more parallel headroom available in theory.

The i5-3360M wins on efficiency and integration. Its 35 W TDP is less than half the Xeon's 95 W, a major difference for mobile or compact systems. It includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, so it can run without a discrete GPU. Its higher clock speeds, 2.80 GHz base and 3.50 GHz boost, give it an edge in single-threaded responsiveness, reflected in the single-core benchmark wins. The i5-3360M also has a smaller die and newer process node, which typically correlates with lower power draw and less heat output.

For a laptop or small-form-factor build, the i5-3360M is the clear pick. For a rack server requiring ECC memory and maximum core count, the Xeon X3440 is the only option that fits that requirement. The benchmark data does not show the Xeon winning any test, but the platform features are the deciding factor for that niche.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU is faster in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The Intel Core i5-3360M wins all multi-core tests. It scores 246 versus 238 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1029 versus 994 in R20 multi-core, and 2451 versus 2368 in R23 multi-core. The deltas range from 3.4% to 3.5%.

Q: Does the Xeon X3440 have more cores than the i5-3360M?

A: Yes. The Xeon X3440 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon also has a larger shared L3 cache at 8 MB versus 3 MB.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon X3440 supports ECC memory. The i5-3360M has no ECC support listed in the database.

Q: How do their power draws compare?

A: The i5-3360M has a TDP of 35 W, while the Xeon X3440 has a TDP of 95 W. The i5-3360M uses significantly less power.

Q: Do either of these CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: The i5-3360M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Xeon X3440 has no integrated graphics and requires a discrete GPU.

Q: What are their average benchmark scores?

A: The i5-3360M has an average benchmark score of 835. The Xeon X3440 has an average benchmark score of 815. Both sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are uniform: the i5-3360M wins all five comparisons, with no single test going to the Xeon X3440. The smallest margin is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the i5-3360M scores 246 against 238 for the Xeon, a 3.4% lead. The largest margins are in the single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3360M scores 145 versus 140, a 3.6% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-3360M scores 346 versus 334, also a 3.6% lead. These single-core results align with the clock speed advantage: the i5-3360M boosts to 3.50 GHz, while the Xeon boosts to 2.93 GHz.

The multi-core tests show a similar pattern, despite the Xeon's extra cores and threads. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i5-3360M scores 1029 versus 994, a 3.5% lead. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-3360M scores 2451 versus 2368, a 3.5% lead. The Xeon's 4-core, 8-thread configuration and 8 MB L3 cache do not overcome the i5-3360M's newer architecture and higher clocks. The i5-3360M also holds wins in the Geekbench tests, scoring 1110 multi-core and 518 single-core, though the Xeon X3440 has no corresponding Geekbench scores recorded for direct comparison.

The nearest-rival data places both CPUs in a tight cluster. The i5-3360M sits near the Intel Xeon X3450, which has an average score of 837 and a delta of -0.2%, and the Intel Core i5-5200U at 838 with a delta of -0.3%. The Xeon X3440 sits near the Intel Core i5-L16G7 at 816 with a delta of -0.1% and the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 at 813 with a delta of 0.2%. These close deltas confirm that both processors are mid-pack performers, with the i5-3360M holding a slight but consistent edge over the Xeon.

The benchmark results indicate that the i5-3360M's architectural advantages, smaller process node, higher clocks, and newer core design, outweigh the Xeon's raw core count and larger cache in every recorded workload. The Xeon's strengths are not visible in these tests, but its ECC support and server-class feature set remain its defining characteristics. For anyone comparing purely on benchmark scores, the i5-3360M is the faster part. For anyone comparing on platform capability, the Xeon X3440 offers ECC memory and double the core count, features that matter outside the scope of these tests.