Intel Core i5-3380M vs Intel Xeon W3520 Comparison

The Verdict

The data presents an unusually close contest between two processors from different eras and market segments. The Intel Core i5-3380M, a 22 nm mobile dual-core from the Ivy Bridge generation, and the Intel Xeon W3520, a 45 nm server/workstation quad-core from the Nehalem Bloomfield generation, land within a hair of each other in every recorded benchmark. The Xeon W3520 edges ahead in two of the five head-to-head multicore tests, while the i5-3380M claims three nominal wins, but the largest delta between them in any single test is 0.1 percent. For a user deciding strictly on measured performance, the choice should be dictated by platform requirements and feature needs, not by raw speed, because the recorded scores do not separate the two in any meaningful way.

The Core i5-3380M is the pick for anyone needing an integrated graphics solution, as it carries Intel HD 4000, while the Xeon W3520 has no integrated graphics at all. The Xeon W3520 is the pick for workloads that benefit from four physical cores and eight threads, as its architecture provides double the core count of the i5-3380M, and it supports ECC memory, which the i5-3380M does not. The i5-3380M, with a 35 watt TDP against the Xeon's 130 watts, is the obvious choice for power-constrained or mobile environments. The Xeon W3520, marked as end-of-life and a server/workstation part, suits a stationary workstation build where ECC memory and eight threads matter more than power efficiency. In purely numerical terms, the database shows an average benchmark score of 838 for the i5-3380M and 862 for the Xeon W3520, a gap of roughly 2.9 percent in favor of the Xeon. That is a slim margin, and the single-core results are dead even at 148 in Cinebench R20 and 353 in Cinebench R23. The verdict is straightforward: choose the Xeon W3520 for multi-threaded workstation tasks with ECC support, choose the Core i5-3380M for a mobile platform or any build requiring integrated graphics and far lower power draw.

Architecture Differences

The two processors diverge sharply at the architectural level. The Core i5-3380M is built on Intel's 22 nm process node with a die size of 118 mm², while the Xeon W3520 uses a 45 nm process node with a die size of 263 mm² and 731 million transistors. The i5-3380M belongs to the Ivy Bridge architecture and the Core i5 (Ivy Bridge) generation, whereas the Xeon W3520 belongs to the Nehalem architecture and the Xeon (Bloomfield) generation. These generational gaps explain why the newer mobile chip can match an older quad-core workstation part despite having half the core count.

Core and thread counts differ significantly. The i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon W3520 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Cache allocations follow the same pattern: both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the i5-3380M has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon W3520 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The larger L3 cache on the Xeon is a direct consequence of its four-core design and server-oriented lineage.

Memory support also diverges. The i5-3380M uses dual-channel DDR3 memory and does not support ECC, while the Xeon W3520 uses triple-channel DDR3 memory and supports ECC. The Xeon also carries PCIe Gen 2 support, a feature not listed for the i5-3380M. The i5-3380M integrates Intel HD 4000 graphics, a capability entirely absent from the Xeon W3520, which lists no integrated graphics. Sockets are incompatible as well: the i5-3380M uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), a mobile socket, while the Xeon W3520 uses Intel Socket 1366, a desktop/workstation socket.

Clock speeds favor the mobile part. The i5-3380M has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon W3520 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 2.93 GHz. Power consumption heavily favors the i5-3380M as well, with a 35 watt TDP against the Xeon's 130 watt TDP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The i5-3380M was released in early January 2013, while the Xeon W3520 was released in late March 2009. The Xeon's production status is listed as end-of-life, while the i5-3380M has no production status listed. The part numbers are SR0X7 for the i5-3380M and SLBEW for the Xeon W3520.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark data shows an extraordinary level of parity. In Cinebench R15 multicore, both processors score exactly 252, with the database recording a nominal win for the i5-3380M at a delta of 0 percent. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon W3520 scores 1052 against the i5-3380M's 1051, a delta of -0.1 percent in favor of the Xeon. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, both score exactly 148, with the i5-3380M taking the nominal win at 0 percent delta. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the Xeon W3520 scores 2505 against the i5-3380M's 2504, a 0 percent delta. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, both score exactly 353, with the i5-3380M taking the nominal win at 0 percent delta.

The pattern is clear: the multicore tests show the Xeon W3520 ahead by one point in two cases, while the single-core tests are perfectly tied. The largest measured difference anywhere is a single point in Cinebench R20 multicore, which translates to a 0.1 percent delta. The i5-3380M's higher clock speeds, 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, appear to offset the Xeon's two additional cores and 8 MB of L3 cache in these particular workloads. The Xeon's eight threads do not produce a meaningful advantage in Cinebench's rendering load, at least not within the margin recorded here.

Beyond the head-to-head, the i5-3380M has additional benchmark results not shared with the Xeon W3520. The i5-3380M scores 1055 in Geekbench multicore and 505 in Geekbench singlecore. These figures contribute to its average benchmark score of 838. The Xeon W3520 has no Geekbench results listed, and its average benchmark score of 862 comes from the five Cinebench tests it shares with the i5-3380M. The i5-3380M sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon W3520 sits at the 23rd percentile. The nearest rivals for the i5-3380M include the Intel Core i5-5200U at an average score of 838 with a delta of 0.1 percent, the Intel Xeon X3450 at 837 with a delta of 0.1 percent, the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839 with a delta of -0.2 percent, and the Intel Core i7-920 at 840 with a delta of -0.3 percent. The nearest rivals for the Xeon W3520 include the Intel Core i5-3470T at 863 with a delta of -0.1 percent, the AMD A8-7650K at 860 with a delta of 0.2 percent, the Intel Core i7-4500U at 859 with a delta of 0.3 percent, and the Intel Xeon X3460 at 866 with a delta of -0.5 percent.

These rival placements reinforce the conclusion that both processors occupy the same performance tier. The i5-3380M's 838 average is within a point of the Xeon W3520's 862 average when considering the full rival range, which spans from 837 to 840 for the i5-3380M and from 859 to 866 for the Xeon. The Xeon's average is higher, but the overlap in benchmark scores makes the practical difference negligible for most workloads.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Do the two processors perform differently in single-core tests?

A: No. Both score exactly 148 in Cinebench R20 singlecore and exactly 353 in Cinebench R23 singlecore.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i5-3380M does not support ECC memory.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon W3520 has no integrated graphics.

Q: What is the power draw difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Intel Xeon W3520 has a TDP of 130 watts.

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 has an average benchmark score of 862, while the Intel Core i5-3380M has an average benchmark score of 838.

Where Each One Wins

The i5-3380M wins in the mobile and power-sensitive segment. Its 35 watt TDP makes it suitable for laptops or compact systems where thermal and power budgets are tight. Its integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics eliminates the need for a discrete GPU in basic display tasks, something the Xeon W3520 cannot offer. Its higher clock speeds, 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, give it a nominal edge in the single-core Cinebench tests, even if the scores are identical. The i5-3380M also records three nominal head-to-head wins in the database, including Cinebench R15 multicore, Cinebench R20 singlecore, and Cinebench R23 singlecore, though all at 0 percent delta.

The Xeon W3520 wins in the workstation and server segment. Its 4 cores and 8 threads provide double the physical core count of the i5-3380M, which matters for heavily threaded workloads that scale beyond the two cores of the mobile part. Its 8 MB of shared L3 cache is more than double the i5-3380M's 3 MB, which can benefit workloads with large working sets. Its ECC memory support makes it suitable for error-sensitive compute tasks, and its triple-channel memory bus offers wider memory bandwidth potential than the i5-3380M's dual-channel bus. Its 130 watt TDP, while high, is typical for a server/workstation part and reflects its intended stationary deployment. The Xeon W3520 takes the nominal multicore wins in Cinebench R20 and Cinebench R23, with scores of 1052 and 2505 respectively, and its average benchmark score of 862 is higher than the i5-3380M's 838.

For a user building a new system today, the choice depends on platform. The i5-3380M's Socket G2 (988B) is a mobile socket, while the Xeon W3520's Socket 1366 is a desktop/workstation socket, so the motherboard and form factor dictate compatibility before performance is even considered. The Xeon's end-of-life status suggests it is a legacy part, while the i5-3380M has no production status listed, but both are older generations. In workloads where single-thread speed is paramount, the two are indistinguishable in the recorded data. In workloads where eight threads and ECC memory are required, the Xeon W3520 is the only one of the two that qualifies. In any scenario requiring integrated graphics or minimal power draw, the i5-3380M is the only viable option. The benchmark data shows a virtual tie in rendering performance, so the decision rests on features, platform, and power, not on speed.