Intel Core i5-3360M vs Intel Xeon X5470 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5470 and Intel Core i5-3360M are separated by four years, two process nodes, and a fundamental design philosophy shift, yet their benchmark results are remarkably close. The data shows a decisive, albeit narrow, victory for the mobile Core i5-3360M, which wins all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons. The Xeon X5470, a 2008 server/workstation part, holds its own in raw multi-threaded throughput but consistently trails by fractions of a percent, exposing the generational efficiency and architectural advantages of the newer Ivy Bridge design.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Core i5-3360M edges out the Xeon X5470 in every single benchmark recorded, though the margins are almost negligible. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-3360M scores 246 against the Xeon’s 245, a delta of -0.4% from the Xeon’s perspective. This pattern repeats across the board: Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1029 for the i5 versus 1024 for the Xeon (-0.5%), and R23 multi-core shows 2451 versus 2440 (-0.4%). The single-core results tell a similar story, with the i5-3360M leading 145 to 144 in R20 single-core (-0.7%) and 346 to 344 in R23 single-core (-0.6%).

What is striking is not the size of the wins—they are statistically trivial—but the consistency. The i5-3360M, despite having only 2 physical cores, matches or slightly beats a 4-core Xeon with a 120W TDP. The Xeon’s higher base clock of 3.33 GHz is offset by the i5’s boost clock of 3.50 GHz, which likely explains the single-core parity. In multi-core tests, the i5’s Hyper-Threading (4 threads) allows it to keep pace with the Xeon’s 4 physical threads, while the newer Ivy Bridge architecture delivers better instructions-per-clock.

The i5-3360M also holds a narrow overall average benchmark score of 835, compared to the Xeon’s 839, a difference of less than 0.5%. Both processors sit in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, according to the database, placing them in identical performance tiers. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the Core i5-3380M (avg score 838, delta 0.1%) and Core i7-920 (avg score 840, delta -0.1%), while the i5-3360M’s closest competitor is the Xeon X3450 (avg score 837, delta -0.2%). This clustering shows that both parts are essentially interchangeable in raw compute, but the i5 does it with a fraction of the power draw and a vastly smaller physical footprint.

FAQ

Q: Is the Core i5-3360M faster than the Xeon X5470 in multi-core workloads?

A: Yes, marginally. The i5-3360M wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests: R15 (246 vs 245), R20 (1029 vs 1024), and R23 (2451 vs 2440). The margin is under 0.5% in every case, but the trend is consistent.

Q: Does the Xeon X5470 have more cores?

A: Yes, the Xeon has 4 physical cores, while the Core i5-3360M has 2. However, both processors support 4 threads, as the i5-3360M uses Hyper-Threading. This thread count parity explains why the multi-core scores are so close.

Q: Which processor has a higher clock speed?

A: The Xeon X5470 has a higher base clock at 3.33 GHz, but the Core i5-3360M has a boost clock of 3.50 GHz. Since the Xeon has no boost clock listed, its maximum frequency is its base clock, giving the i5 the top-end speed advantage.

Q: Are these processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both the Xeon X5470 and the Core i5-3360M are in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. Their average benchmark scores are 839 and 835, respectively, a difference of only 4 points.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon X5470 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-3360M does not, reflecting its mobile consumer market segment versus the Xeon’s server/workstation positioning.

Q: What are the release dates of these two CPUs?

A: The Xeon X5470 was released on September 7, 2008, while the Core i5-3360M was released on May 31, 2012. The i5 is nearly four years newer.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial. The Xeon X5470 is built on the Core 2 architecture with the codename Harpertown, using a 45 nm process node manufactured by Intel. It packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die design with a die size of 2x 107 mm². Its cache layout is unusual: 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die, with no L3 cache. This per-die L2 design was typical of the Core 2 generation, where each physical die had its own dedicated cache.

In contrast, the Core i5-3360M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process node, also manufactured by Intel. The die size is 118 mm², and the transistor count is not listed in the data, but the smaller node allows for significantly higher efficiency. The cache hierarchy is modern: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. This shared L3 is a critical difference, as it allows both cores (and threads) to access a common pool of high-speed memory, reducing latency in multi-threaded scenarios.

The i5-3360M also includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics, a feature entirely absent from the Xeon. The Xeon, being a server/workstation part, relies on a discrete GPU. The memory support also differs: the Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, while the i5-3360M’s memory support is listed as null in the data, though it does have a dual-channel memory bus. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i5 does not.

The production statuses also diverge. The Xeon is explicitly listed as end-of-life, while the i5-3360M has no production status listed, implying it may have had a longer retail life. The Xeon uses the Intel Socket 771, a server-only socket, while the i5 uses Intel BGA 1023, a soldered mobile socket. This makes the Xeon a platform-bound part, whereas the i5 is designed for laptops and ultrabooks.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Xeon X5470 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads. The base clock is 3.33 GHz for the Xeon versus 2.80 GHz for the i5, but the i5 has a boost clock of 3.50 GHz, which the Xeon lacks entirely. The TDP is a massive differentiator: the Xeon draws 120W, while the i5 draws only 35W, a 71% reduction in power consumption for the newer part.

The sockets are incompatible: Intel Socket 771 for the Xeon versus Intel BGA 1023 for the i5. The architecture and codename differ (Core 2/Harpertown vs Ivy Bridge/Ivy Bridge), as do the process nodes (45 nm vs 22 nm). The Xeon’s transistor count is 820 million, while the i5’s is not listed; the die size is 2x 107 mm² for the Xeon versus 118 mm² for the i5.

Cache configurations are distinct: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core and 6 MB L2 per die, with no L3; the i5 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. The Xeon supports ECC memory, the i5 does not. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 2, while the i5’s PCIe version is not listed. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the i5 features Intel HD 4000. The market segments are server/workstation versus mobile. The Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1386, while the i5 has no listed launch MSRP.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-3360M is the better performer in this head-to-head, winning all five Cinebench tests and delivering nearly identical average benchmark scores (835 vs 839) while consuming less than a third of the power (35W vs 120W). The i5 achieves this with half the physical cores, relying on a newer architecture, a higher boost clock, and a shared L3 cache to match the older quad-core Xeon. The only areas where the Xeon holds an advantage are ECC memory support and the PCIe Gen 2 interface, both of which are niche server features irrelevant to most users.

For any modern workload, the Core i5-3360M is the clear choice. It offers the same multi-threaded capability in a mobile form factor with integrated graphics, making it suitable for laptops and compact systems. The Xeon X5470, despite its higher base clock and 4 physical cores, is held back by its older Core 2 architecture, which cannot match the per-core efficiency of Ivy Bridge. The Xeon’s end-of-life status and dated socket (771) also make it a poor platform for upgrades.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Core i5-3360M:

• Single-core performance: The i5 wins Cinebench R20 single-core (145 vs 144) and R23 single-core (346 vs 344), thanks to its 3.50 GHz boost clock.
• Multi-core performance: The i5 wins all three multi-core tests (R15, R20, R23) by margins of 0.4–0.5%, despite having only 2 physical cores.
• Power efficiency: The i5’s 35W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon’s 120W, making it suitable for mobile devices and low-power systems.
• Integrated graphics: The Intel HD 4000 provides basic display output without a discrete GPU, a feature the Xeon lacks.
• Modern platform: The Ivy Bridge architecture and BGA 1023 socket are newer and offer better performance-per-clock.

Intel Xeon X5470:

• ECC memory support: The Xeon supports ECC memory, a requirement for mission-critical server and workstation environments where data integrity is paramount.
• Physical core count: The Xeon has 4 dedicated physical cores, which may be preferred in scenarios where raw core count is valued over thread sharing.
• PCIe Gen 2: The Xeon explicitly supports PCIe Gen 2, which can be relevant for older server peripherals.
• Dual-die cache design: The 6 MB L2 per die provides a large pool of cache for each die, which can benefit certain server workloads that exhibit locality.
• Server market segment: The Xeon is designed for 24/7 operation in server/workstation environments, where its higher TDP is acceptable in exchange for stability and ECC support.