Intel Core i5-3360M vs Intel Xeon X5492 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a clear, though narrow, victory for the Intel Xeon X5492 across every test in the database. The most substantial margin comes in the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, where the Xeon scores 249 against the Core i5-3360M's 246, a 1.2% advantage. This pattern repeats in the R20 multi-core run, with the Xeon posting 1039 points versus 1029, a 1.0% lead. The R23 multi-core test shows a similar 1.0% gap, with scores of 2475 and 2451 respectively.

Single-core results follow the same trajectory, though with even tighter margins. The Xeon X5492 edges out the Core i5-3360M by 0.7% in R20 single-core (146 vs. 145) and by 0.9% in R23 single-core (349 vs. 346). While the Xeon wins all five head-to-head comparisons, the deltas are remarkably small, never exceeding 1.2%. This indicates that, despite massive architectural differences, the two processors deliver nearly identical performance in the recorded Cinebench workloads.

Looking at the broader database context, the Xeon X5492 holds an average benchmark score of 852, placing it in the 23rd percentile of all CPUs. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-5250U (856, -0.4%), the AMD Athlon X4 830 (848, +0.4%), the Intel Core i5-2500T (856, -0.5%), and the Intel Core i7-4500U (859, -0.8%). The Core i5-3360M, by contrast, averages 835 and sits in the 22nd percentile, with its closest competitors being the Intel Xeon X3450 (837, -0.2%), the Intel Core i5-5200U (838, -0.3%), the Intel Core i5-3380M (838, -0.4%), and the Intel Xeon X5470 (839, -0.5%). The data shows both processors operating in a similar performance tier, within roughly 2% of each other on average.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is substantial. The Intel Xeon X5492 is built on the Core 2 architecture, specifically the Harpertown codename, using a 45 nm process node. It packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm². The Core i5-3360M, meanwhile, uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process, with a single 118 mm² die. The newer manufacturing process allows the mobile chip to achieve comparable performance with dramatically lower power consumption.

Core and cache configurations differ sharply. The Xeon X5492 provides 4 physical cores with 4 threads, while the Core i5-3360M offers 2 physical cores but 4 threads through Hyper-Threading. Both processors feature 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but the similarities end there. The Xeon carries 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache present. The Core i5-3360M instead uses 256 KB of L2 per core and adds 3 MB of shared L3 cache. This cache hierarchy difference helps explain why the 2-core Ivy Bridge part keeps pace with the 4-core Core 2 part in multi-threaded workloads.

Clock speeds also tell a story. The Xeon X5492 runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The Core i5-3360M starts at 2.80 GHz but can turbo up to 3.50 GHz, giving it a higher maximum frequency. The power envelope is where the gap becomes extreme: the Xeon has a 150 W TDP, while the Core i5-3360M draws only 35 W. That is a more than 4x difference in thermal design power, reflecting the mobile versus server/workstation positioning.

Memory support differs as well. The Xeon X5492 supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration and includes ECC memory support, a critical feature for server reliability. The Core i5-3360M also uses dual-channel memory but lacks ECC support. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i5-3360M's PCIe information is not recorded in the database. The Core i5-3360M includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon targets the server/workstation market segment, whereas the Core i5-3360M is a mobile part. The Xeon is end-of-life, released in September 2008, while the Core i5-3360M launched in May 2012.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X5492 wins in every recorded benchmark, but the margins are so thin that the practical implications are limited. In multi-core workloads, the Xeon's advantage stems from having 4 physical cores versus the Core i5-3360M's 2 cores with 4 threads. The R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests all show the Xeon ahead by approximately 1% to 1.2%. For sustained server or workstation workloads that can utilize 4 full cores, the Xeon holds a small but measurable edge.

The Core i5-3360M, despite losing all head-to-head tests, wins decisively in other dimensions. Its 35 W TDP versus the Xeon's 150 W makes it suitable for laptops and mobile workstations where power and thermals are constrained. The integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics provide display output and basic GPU acceleration, capabilities the Xeon entirely lacks. The Core i5-3360M's boost clock of 3.50 GHz, which exceeds the Xeon's fixed 3.40 GHz, suggests it can handle lightly-threaded tasks with comparable speed while using a fraction of the power.

In the Geekbench tests, which only the Core i5-3360M has recorded, it scores 1110 in multi-core and 518 in single-core. These numbers, though not directly comparable to the Xeon's Cinebench-only results, place the mobile chip firmly in the same performance class as the server processor. The Core i5-3360M's nearest rival, the Intel Xeon X5470, averages 839, which is nearly identical to the X5492's 852. This suggests the mobile chip can match or approach desktop and server parts from a similar era.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification category. The Xeon X5492 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon runs at 3.40 GHz base with no boost; the Core i5-3360M runs at 2.80 GHz base with a 3.50 GHz boost. TDP is 150 W versus 35 W, a four-fold difference. The Xeon uses Socket 771, the Core i5-3360M uses BGA 1023. The Xeon is Core 2 architecture (Harpertown) on 45 nm; the Core i5-3360M is Ivy Bridge on 22 nm.

Cache configurations diverge completely. The Xeon has 6 MB L2 per die and no L3. The Core i5-3360M has 256 KB L2 per core and 3 MB shared L3. The Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory with ECC; the Core i5-3360M's memory support is not recorded, but it lacks ECC. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 2; the Core i5-3360M has no PCIe data recorded. The Xeon has no integrated graphics; the Core i5-3360M includes Intel HD 4000. The Xeon targets server/workstation, the Core i5-3360M targets mobile. The Xeon is end-of-life with a launch MSRP of $1493; the Core i5-3360M has no recorded launch MSRP. The Xeon's part number is SLBBD; the Core i5-3360M's is SR0MW. The Xeon's transistors count is 820 million; the Core i5-3360M's is not recorded. The Xeon's die size is 2x 107 mm²; the Core i5-3360M's is 118 mm².

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon X5492 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 249 vs. 246 in R15, 1039 vs. 1029 in R20, and 2475 vs. 2451 in R23, with margins of 1.2%, 1.0%, and 1.0% respectively.

Q: Does the Core i5-3360M ever beat the Xeon X5492?

A: No. In the five head-to-head benchmark comparisons recorded, the Xeon X5492 wins all five. The Core i5-3360M has additional Geekbench scores (1110 multi-core, 518 single-core) that are not part of the head-to-head comparison.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The Xeon X5492 has a TDP of 150 W, while the Core i5-3360M has a TDP of 35 W. The Core i5-3360M uses less than a quarter of the power budget.

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon X5492 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The Core i5-3360M has 2 cores and 4 threads, using Hyper-Threading to reach the same thread count.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon X5492 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-3360M does not.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i5-3360M includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4000. The Xeon X5492 has no integrated graphics.

The Verdict

The data points to different buyers for each processor, despite their similar benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon X5492 is the choice for server or workstation builds where ECC memory support, 4 physical cores, and a fixed 3.40 GHz clock are required. Its 150 W TDP is acceptable in a desktop or rack chassis, and its socket 771 platform targets that market. The Xeon's end-of-life status and 2008 release date mean it belongs in legacy systems, but its benchmark results remain competitive with much newer hardware.

The Intel Core i5-3360M wins for mobile applications. Its 35 W TDP, integrated HD 4000 graphics, and BGA 1023 socket make it a laptop-oriented part. The boost clock reaching 3.50 GHz gives it a frequency advantage over the Xeon in single-threaded bursts. The 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture provides better power efficiency, and the 3 MB shared L3 cache helps compensate for having only 2 physical cores.

For raw performance in the recorded Cinebench tests, the Xeon X5492 is the winner, but only by margins under 1.2%. For practical deployment in modern mobile systems, the Core i5-3360M is the logical choice. The database shows both processors sitting at the 23rd and 22nd percentiles respectively, meaning neither is a high-flying performer by contemporary standards. Users who need ECC and 4 physical cores should select the Xeon X5492. Users who need low power, integrated graphics, and a boost clock should select the Core i5-3360M. The benchmark data alone does not separate them meaningfully, so the decision rests on platform requirements and power constraints.