Intel Core i5-3380M vs Intel Xeon X3440 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a consistent, if modest, victory for the Intel Core i5-3380M across every shared benchmark in this comparison. The Xeon X3440 does not win a single head-to-head test, with the i5-3380M taking all five recorded comparisons.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-3380M scores 252 against the Xeon X3440's 238, a 5.9% advantage. This is the largest delta between the two processors in any test. The pattern continues in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the i5-3380M posts 1051 versus 994 for the Xeon, a 5.7% lead. The single-core results tell the same story: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-3380M scores 148 to the Xeon's 140, again a 5.7% gap.

Cinebench R23 results mirror this almost exactly. The i5-3380M reaches 2504 in multi-core while the Xeon X3440 manages 2368, a 5.7% difference. In single-core, the i5-3380M scores 353 against 334 for the Xeon, also a 5.7% margin.

The consistency of these deltas (5.7% in four of five tests) suggests a stable performance advantage tied to architectural efficiency rather than a workload-specific quirk. The i5-3380M also has a Geekbench multi-core score of 1055 and a single-core score of 505, though the Xeon X3440 has no recorded Geekbench results in the database for direct comparison.

Looking at the broader database context, the i5-3380M sits at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs with an average benchmark score of 838. Its nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-5200U (average score 838, delta 0.1%), the Intel Xeon X3450 (837, delta 0.1%), and the Intel Xeon X5470 (839, delta -0.2%). The Xeon X3440 also occupies the 22nd percentile, with an average score of 815. Its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-L16G7 (816, delta -0.1%), the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 (813, delta 0.2%), and the Intel Xeon E5540 (820, delta -0.7%).

Despite the Xeon having twice the core count, the i5-3380M's higher clock speeds and newer architecture deliver superior results in every measured workload. The average score difference (838 versus 815) represents roughly a 2.8% overall advantage for the i5-3380M, though the head-to-head deltas are larger in the specific Cinebench tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-3380M wins all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 it scores 252 versus 238 for the Xeon X3440, in R20 it scores 1051 versus 994, and in R23 it scores 2504 versus 2368. Each margin is approximately 5.7% to 5.9%.

Q: Does the Xeon X3440 have any performance advantage?

A: No. The Xeon X3440 loses every head-to-head benchmark. The i5-3380M wins all five recorded tests, with no single test favoring the Xeon.

Q: How do these processors compare in single-core workloads?

A: The i5-3380M leads in single-core as well. In Cinebench R20 single-core it scores 148 against 140, and in R23 single-core it scores 353 against 334, both representing a 5.7% advantage.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The i5-3380M has an average benchmark score of 838, while the Xeon X3440 has an average of 815. Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database.

Q: Are there any benchmark results unique to one processor?

A: Yes. The i5-3380M has recorded Geekbench scores (1055 multi-core, 505 single-core) that the Xeon X3440 does not have. The Xeon has no Geekbench entries in the database.

Q: How close are these processors to their nearest rivals?

A: The i5-3380M is within 0.3% of its closest competitors (the Core i5-5200U at 838, the Xeon X3450 at 837, and the Xeon X5470 at 839). The Xeon X3440 is similarly close to its nearest rivals (the Core i5-L16G7 at 816, the Core 2 Extreme QX9775 at 813, and the Core i7-5550U at 813).

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The i5-3380M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, built on a 22 nm process node. The Xeon X3440 uses the older Nehalem architecture (codename Lynnfield), manufactured on a 45 nm process. This process difference is significant: the newer 22 nm node allows the i5-3380M to achieve higher clock speeds while consuming far less power.

The i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon X3440 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Despite having half the cores, the i5-3380M still outperforms the Xeon in every test, thanks to its higher base clock of 2.90 GHz versus 2.53 GHz, and boost clock of 3.60 GHz versus 2.93 GHz. The Xeon's extra threads do not compensate for the clock speed deficit and architectural improvements in the newer chip.

Cache configurations also differ. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core. However, the i5-3380M has 3 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon X3440 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon's larger L3 cache does not translate into a performance win, as the benchmark results show.

The i5-3380M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), while the Xeon X3440 has no integrated graphics. The Xeon compensates with ECC memory support (true), whereas the i5-3380M does not support ECC. The Xeon also has a listed memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while the i5-3380M has no recorded memory bandwidth figure.

Process node and die size further differentiate the pair. The i5-3380M has a die size of 118 mm², while the Xeon X3440 is substantially larger at 296 mm². The Xeon's transistor count is listed at 774 million, while the i5-3380M has no transistor count in the database. The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the i5-3380M has no PCIe specification listed.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: i5-3380M has 2, Xeon X3440 has 4
• Threads: i5-3380M has 4, Xeon X3440 has 8
• Base clock: 2.90 GHz versus 2.53 GHz
• Boost clock: 3.60 GHz versus 2.93 GHz
• TDP: 35 W versus 95 W
• Socket: Intel Socket G2 (988B) versus Intel Socket 1156
• Architecture: Ivy Bridge versus Nehalem
• Codename: Ivy Bridge versus Lynnfield
• Process node: 22 nm versus 45 nm
• Die size: 118 mm² versus 296 mm²
• L3 cache: 3 MB shared versus 8 MB shared
• Memory bandwidth: not listed versus 21.3 GB/s
• ECC memory: false versus true
• Integrated graphics: Intel HD 4000 versus none
• Market segment: Mobile versus Server/Workstation
• Release date: 2012-12-31 versus 2009-09-07
• Launch MSRP: not listed versus $215
• Part number: SR0X7 versus SLBLF
• Production status: not listed versus End-of-life

Both processors support DDR3 memory with dual-channel memory bus, both are multiplier-unlocked (false), and both are manufactured by Intel.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i5-3380M outperforms the Intel Xeon X3440 in every recorded test. With five wins out of five head-to-head comparisons, the i5-3380M demonstrates a consistent 5.7% to 5.9% advantage across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 workloads, in both single-core and multi-core scenarios.

The i5-3380M achieves this despite having half the cores and threads of the Xeon X3440. Its higher clock speeds (2.90 GHz base, 3.60 GHz boost versus 2.53 GHz and 2.93 GHz) and newer 22 nm Ivy Bridge architecture overcome the Xeon's 4-core, 8-thread configuration and larger 8 MB L3 cache. The Xeon's 95 W TDP versus the i5-3380M's 35 W TDP further highlights the efficiency gap, though power consumption is not directly benchmarked here.

For users prioritizing raw multi-threaded throughput, the Xeon's 8 threads might seem attractive on paper, but the recorded data shows that the i5-3380M still wins in Cinebench multi-core tests. The Xeon's ECC memory support and server/workstation market segment are its only clear advantages, alongside a larger L3 cache and higher memory bandwidth figure (21.3 GB/s versus no listed figure for the i5).

The i5-3380M, with its integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics and mobile segment designation, is the better choice for any workload represented in the benchmark suite. Its average benchmark score of 838 versus 815 for the Xeon, combined with its 35 W TDP, makes it the superior performer across the measured criteria. The Xeon X3440, now end-of-life and built on a larger 45 nm process, cannot match the newer architecture's efficiency or performance in these tests.

The verdict from the database is clear: the i5-3380M wins every measurable comparison. The only reasons to select the Xeon X3440 would be specific platform requirements (Socket 1156, ECC memory support) or server-oriented features not captured in these benchmarks, but in terms of raw CPU performance as recorded here, the i5-3380M is the definitive winner.