Intel Core i5-3380M vs Intel Xeon X3450 Comparison

The Intel Core i5-3380M and Intel Xeon X3450 occupy the same percentile ranking among all CPUs (22nd), and their average benchmark scores are separated by a single point (838 vs. 837). Yet they are fundamentally different processors: one is a 35W dual-core mobile chip built on 22nm Ivy Bridge, the other a 95W quad-core server part from 45nm Nehalem. The benchmark data shows the i5-3380M winning every head-to-head test, but the margins are slim, ranging from 2.8% to 3.0%. This is a clash of efficiency versus raw core count, where the newer architecture consistently edges out the older, higher-core-count design.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Xeon X3450 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Core i5-3380M averages 838 points, and the Xeon X3450 averages 837 points, a difference of just 0.1% in favor of the i5. Both chips sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs.

Q: In which test does the Core i5-3380M show its largest margin of victory?

A: The largest win is in Cinebench R23 multicore, where the i5-3380M scores 2504 versus 2431 for the Xeon X3450, a 3% advantage.

Q: Does the Xeon X3450 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon X3450 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-3380M does not.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between the two?

A: The Core i5-3380M has a TDP of 35 watts, while the Xeon X3450 has a TDP of 95 watts.

Q: Which processor features integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i5-3380M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000). The Xeon X3450 has no integrated GPU.

Architecture Differences

The two CPUs come from different architectural generations and design philosophies. The Core i5-3380M is built on Intel's 22nm Ivy Bridge process, packing 2 cores and 4 threads into a die size of 118 mm². Its transistor count is not specified in the data, but the smaller process node and mobile market segment suggest a focus on power efficiency. In contrast, the Xeon X3450 uses the older 45nm Nehalem architecture with a codename of Lynnfield, containing 774 million transistors on a much larger 296 mm² die. This server/workstation part offers 4 cores and 8 threads, doubling the physical core count of the i5.

Cache configurations also differ significantly. Both share the same per-core L1 (64 KB) and L2 (256 KB) allocations, but the Xeon X3450 has a substantially larger shared L3 cache at 8 MB versus the i5-3380M's 3 MB. The Xeon's larger cache is typical for a server part designed to handle heavier multi-threaded workloads. The i5-3380M compensates with a higher clock speed, running at 2.90 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, while the Xeon is clocked lower at 2.67 GHz base and 3.20 GHz boost.

Memory support shows another divide. Both support DDR3 with dual-channel memory buses, but the Xeon X3450 supports ECC memory and has a specified memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while the i5-3380M lacks ECC support and has no listed bandwidth figure. The Xeon also includes PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), a feature not specified for the i5. The i5-3380M is a mobile processor on Intel Socket G2 (988B), whereas the Xeon X3450 targets servers on Intel Socket 1156. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the i5's production status is not specified.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results show a clean sweep for the Core i5-3380M across all five head-to-head tests, but the margins are narrow enough to warrant a nuanced look. The i5 wins in Cinebench R15 multicore (252 vs. 245), R20 multicore (1051 vs. 1021), R20 singlecore (148 vs. 144), R23 multicore (2504 vs. 2431), and R23 singlecore (353 vs. 343). Each victory falls between 2.8% and 3.0%, indicating that the i5's architectural efficiency and higher clocks offset the Xeon's two extra physical cores.

For single-threaded workloads, the Core i5-3380M is the clear choice. Its 3.60 GHz boost clock and Ivy Bridge architecture deliver a 2.8% edge in R20 singlecore and 2.9% in R23 singlecore. Users running legacy applications or lightly threaded tasks would see better responsiveness from the i5. The Xeon's lower clock speeds hold it back despite its higher core count.

In multi-threaded scenarios, the Xeon X3450's 4 cores and 8 threads should theoretically give it an advantage, but the data shows otherwise. The i5-3380M still wins, leading by 2.9% in R15 and R20 multicore and 3% in R23 multicore. This suggests that the Xeon's older Nehalem architecture and lower clocks cannot fully utilize its extra cores to overcome the i5's per-core performance. However, the Xeon's ECC memory support and larger 8 MB L3 cache make it more suitable for server environments requiring data integrity and heavy cache-sensitive workloads, even if benchmark scores do not reflect a win.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i5-3380M | Intel Xeon X3450 |

|---|---|---|

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base Clock | 2.90 GHz | 2.67 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.60 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 35 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket G2 (988B) | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Architecture | Ivy Bridge | Nehalem |

| Codename | Ivy Bridge | Lynnfield |

| Process Node | 22 nm | 45 nm |

| Die Size | 118 mm² | 296 mm² |

| Transistors | Not specified | 774 million |

| L3 Cache | 3 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 21.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Not specified | Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | Intel HD 4000 | None |

| Market Segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production Status | Not specified | End-of-life |

| Release Date | 2012-12-31 | 2009-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $241 |

| Part Number | SR0X7 | SLBLD |

The specification table highlights the fundamental divide. The i5-3380M is a newer, smaller, more power-efficient mobile chip, while the Xeon X3450 is a larger, older, power-hungry server processor with double the cores and threads.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data presents a consistent picture: the Core i5-3380M wins every test, but by margins that are remarkably uniform. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5 scores 252 against the Xeon's 245, a 2.9% advantage. This test is often used to gauge rendering performance, and the i5's win here suggests that its Ivy Bridge cores are more efficient per clock than the Xeon's Nehalem cores, even with the Xeon's core count advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multicore, the i5 again takes the lead with 1051 points versus 1021, another 2.9% margin. The R20 singlecore test shows the i5 at 148 against 144, a 2.8% edge. This single-core result is particularly telling for the i5's boost clock of 3.60 GHz, which helps it outperform the Xeon's 3.20 GHz maximum.

The Cinebench R23 multicore test delivers the largest gap in the entire dataset. The i5-3380M scores 2504, while the Xeon X3450 manages 2431, giving the i5 a 3% lead. This test is more demanding and longer-running than its predecessors, and the i5's ability to extend its lead suggests better sustained performance under load, possibly due to its newer architecture and lower power draw. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the i5 wins 353 to 343, a 2.9% margin.

Across all five benchmarks, the i5-3380M's smallest win is 2.8% and its largest is 3.0%. This consistency indicates that the i5's advantage is not workload-specific but rather a general architectural superiority. The Xeon X3450, despite having twice the cores and threads, cannot close the gap in any test. Its 95W TDP and 45nm process likely contribute to thermal and power constraints that limit its ability to sustain high clocks across all cores, whereas the i5's 35W TDP and 22nm process allow for more efficient operation. The data is clear: the newer dual-core i5-3380M outperforms the older quad-core Xeon X3450 in every measured scenario, albeit by narrow margins.