Intel Core i5-3380M vs Intel Xeon E5540 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-3380M across every shared benchmark test. The i5-3380M wins all five head-to-head comparisons, with the Xeon E5540 trailing by a consistent margin of roughly 5 percent in each workload. This uniformity is notable: the Xeon never closes the gap in any single test, and the i5-3380M’s advantage holds in both single-core and multi-core scenarios.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-3380M scores 252 against the Xeon’s 240, a 5 percent lead. The same pattern appears in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where 1051 beats 1001, again a 5 percent delta. Cinebench R23 multi-core shows 2504 versus 2384, another 5 percent margin. The single-core results are equally one-sided: Cinebench R20 single-core has the i5-3380M at 148 against 141 (5 percent), and Cinebench R23 single-core has 353 versus 336, the largest delta in the set at 5.1 percent.

What stands out is that the Xeon’s additional two cores and four threads do not translate into a multi-core victory. Despite having double the core count, the E5540 falls behind in every multi-threaded test. The i5-3380M’s per-core efficiency appears to be the deciding factor, allowing a 2-core, 4-thread mobile part to outperform a 4-core, 8-thread server chip from an older architecture generation.

The average benchmark score reinforces the same conclusion. The i5-3380M posts an average score of 838, while the Xeon E5540 averages 820. The i5-3380M’s percentile ranking of 22 places it slightly above the Xeon, which also sits at the 22nd percentile. The nearest-rival data for the i5-3380M includes the Intel Core i5-5200U at 838 (0.1 percent delta), the Intel Xeon X3450 at 837 (0.1 percent), the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839 (-0.2 percent), and the Intel Core i7-920 at 840 (-0.3 percent). For the Xeon E5540, the nearest rivals are the AMD PRO A10-8750B at 821 (-0.1 percent), the Intel Core i5-L16G7 at 816 (0.5 percent), the Intel Xeon X3440 at 815 (0.6 percent), and the Intel Core i7-5550U at 813 (0.9 percent). These figures place both processors in the same performance tier, but the i5-3380M consistently sits at the top of that tier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins more benchmark tests?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M wins all 5 head-to-head benchmarks recorded in the database. The Intel Xeon E5540 does not win a single test.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two?

A: The i5-3380M leads by 5 percent in Cinebench R15 multi-core, R20 multi-core, R20 single-core, and R23 multi-core. The largest margin is 5.1 percent in Cinebench R23 single-core.

Q: Does the Xeon’s higher core count help it in multi-threaded workloads?

A: No. The Xeon E5540 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads, yet the i5-3380M still wins every multi-core test, including Cinebench R23 multi-core by 5 percent.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i5-3380M has an average benchmark score of 838, while the Xeon E5540 has 820. Both processors rank at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

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

A: The i5-3380M, with a Cinebench R23 single-core score of 353 versus 336 for the Xeon, a 5.1 percent advantage. The Cinebench R20 single-core test also favors the i5-3380M at 148 versus 141.

Q: Is the Xeon E5540 closer to any of its nearest rivals than to the i5-3380M?

A: The Xeon’s nearest rival, the AMD PRO A10-8750B, scores 821, a 0.1 percent delta. The gap between the Xeon and the i5-3380M is larger: 838 versus 820, about a 2 percent difference in average score.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural eras and target different market segments. The Intel Core i5-3380M is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture, using a 22 nm process node, while the Intel Xeon E5540 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, on a 45 nm process. This process advantage gives the i5-3380M a substantial transistor-density lead, though the database lists the i5-3380M’s transistor count as null; the Xeon E5540 is recorded at 731 million transistors. The die sizes reflect the generational difference: the i5-3380M measures 118 mm², while the Xeon E5540 is 263 mm².

Cache configurations also differ. Both processors share 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the L3 cache is a major differentiator. The i5-3380M has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon E5540 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. This gives the Xeon a larger last-level cache, which is typical for a server/workstation part designed to handle larger working sets.

The i5-3380M includes integrated graphics, specifically the Intel HD 4000, while the Xeon E5540 has no integrated graphics. This reflects their intended use cases: the i5-3380M is a mobile processor, and the Xeon E5540 is a server/workstation chip that expects a discrete GPU or no display output at all.

Memory support differs as well. The i5-3380M supports dual-channel DDR3 memory, while the Xeon E5540 supports triple-channel DDR3 and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the i5-3380M does not. PCIe support is listed only for the Xeon E5540, which features PCIe Gen 2; the i5-3380M’s PCIe information is not recorded.

Production status differs: the Xeon E5540 is marked as end-of-life, while the i5-3380M’s production status is not specified in the database. The release dates reflect the generational gap, with the Xeon E5540 released in early 2009 and the i5-3380M released in late 2012.

Specification Differences

The core and thread counts are the most obvious differences. The i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E5540 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Clock speeds favor the i5-3380M: its base clock is 2.90 GHz and boost clock is 3.60 GHz, against the Xeon’s 2.53 GHz base and 2.80 GHz boost. The thermal design power differs significantly, with the i5-3380M at 35 W and the Xeon E5540 at 80 W.

The sockets are incompatible: the i5-3380M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), while the Xeon E5540 uses Intel Socket 1366. The process node differs as noted, with 22 nm for the i5-3380M and 45 nm for the Xeon. The market segments are also different, with the i5-3380M classified as a mobile processor and the Xeon E5540 as a server/workstation processor.

The Xeon E5540 has a recorded launch MSRP of $774. The i5-3380M’s launch MSRP is not available in the database. The Xeon E5540 has a part number of SLBF6, while the i5-3380M has SR0X7. Both processors have locked multipliers. The Xeon E5540 is listed as end-of-life, and its memory bus is triple-channel versus the i5-3380M’s dual-channel.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-3380M wins in every recorded benchmark category. For users prioritizing single-threaded responsiveness, the i5-3380M is clearly stronger, with a 5.1 percent lead in Cinebench R23 single-core and 5 percent in Cinebench R20 single-core. This suggests better performance in lightly threaded applications such as older games, office productivity, and general desktop responsiveness.

For multi-threaded workloads, the i5-3380M also wins, despite the Xeon’s core and thread advantage. The i5-3380M leads by 5 percent in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. This indicates that the i5-3380M’s newer architecture and higher clock speeds compensate for the core deficit, and in workloads that scale poorly with thread count, the i5-3380M’s per-core efficiency wins out.

The Xeon E5540’s wins are not found in benchmark scores, but in platform-level features. It supports ECC memory, which makes it suitable for environments where data integrity is critical, such as servers handling financial data, scientific computing, or long-running processes where memory errors are unacceptable. Its 8 MB L3 cache is larger than the i5-3380M’s 3 MB, which can benefit workloads with larger working sets that fit into the last-level cache. The Xeon also supports triple-channel memory, which can provide higher memory bandwidth, and it carries PCIe Gen 2 connectivity for expansion in server chassis.

The i5-3380M, by contrast, offers integrated graphics, making it a more self-contained mobile solution for laptops. Its 35 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient in absolute terms compared to the Xeon’s 80 W, making it better suited for battery-powered devices and compact laptops where thermal headroom is limited.

In summary, the i5-3380M is the better performer in every measured workload, but the Xeon E5540 retains a niche in server environments where ECC support, larger L3 capacity, and triple-channel memory matter more than raw Cinebench scores. For most general-purpose computing and mobile use cases, the database clearly favors the i5-3380M.