Intel Core i5-3380M vs Intel Xeon X5492 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores?

A: The Intel Xeon X5492 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i5-3380M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the difference in process node technology?

A: The Xeon X5492 is built on a 45 nm process, while the Core i5-3380M uses a more advanced 22 nm process.

Q: Does either processor include integrated graphics?

A: The Core i5-3380M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, while the Xeon X5492 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which chip supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon X5492 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-3380M does not.

Q: How do the two compare in Cinebench R23 multi-core scores?

A: The Core i5-3380M scores 2504, marginally ahead of the Xeon X5492's 2475, a difference of 1.2%.

Q: What market segments do these processors target?

A: The Xeon X5492 is aimed at Server/Workstation use, while the Core i5-3380M is designed for Mobile platforms.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, representing different eras of Intel design. The Xeon X5492, codenamed Harpertown, belongs to the Core 2 architecture family. It uses a 45 nm manufacturing process with a die composed of 2x 107 mm² sections, containing 820 million transistors. The Core i5-3380M, by contrast, is built on the Ivy Bridge architecture with a 22 nm process and a single 118 mm² die. This process shrink gives the mobile chip a significant transistor density advantage despite having fewer cores.

Cache organization differs fundamentally. The Xeon X5492 features 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache present. The Core i5-3380M also has 64 KB of L1 per core but uses 256 KB of L2 per core and adds 3 MB of shared L3 cache. The modern hierarchy with shared L3 is more efficient for workloads that benefit from inter-core communication.

Memory support reflects their different roles. The Xeon supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration and includes ECC capability, a critical feature for server reliability. The Core i5-3380M supports only DDR3, also dual-channel, but lacks ECC support. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 771, while the Core i5 uses Intel Socket G2 (988B), making them physically incompatible.

The clock behavior differs notably. The Xeon X5492 runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The Core i5-3380M has a 2.90 GHz base clock but can boost to 3.60 GHz, providing headroom for single-threaded bursts. Power envelopes are dramatically different: the Xeon has a 150 W TDP versus 35 W for the mobile chip, reflecting the desktop server orientation versus mobile efficiency focus.

The Core i5-3380M also includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, eliminating the need for a discrete GPU in basic display scenarios. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, requiring a separate graphics solution in any server or workstation build. The mobile chip's PCIe support is not specified in the database, while the Xeon lists Gen 2 PCIe connectivity.

The Verdict

The benchmark data paints a remarkably close picture between these two processors, despite their architectural differences. The Core i5-3380M wins all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, but by margins of only 1.1% to 1.4%. The Xeon X5492 has 4 cores versus 2, yet the Ivy Bridge efficiency and higher boost clock of the mobile chip compensate completely in multi-threaded tests.

For server and workstation applications requiring ECC memory, the Xeon X5492 is the only choice of the two. Its 150 W TDP and Socket 771 platform are designed for sustained multi-core workloads in rack environments, and it supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory. The 4-core design provides raw parallel throughput that the 2-core mobile chip cannot expand beyond, even if current benchmarks show parity.

For mobile or compact systems, the Core i5-3380M is clearly superior. Its 35 W TDP is manageable in thin chassis, integrated graphics remove the need for a discrete GPU, and the 22 nm process offers better thermal characteristics. The 3.60 GHz boost clock gives it a single-core edge in the recorded data, and it achieves higher scores in every benchmark despite having fewer physical cores.

The average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the Xeon X5492 records an average of 852, while the Core i5-3380M averages 838, a difference of roughly 1.6%. Both sit at the 22nd to 23rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning either chip places in the same performance tier. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the Core i5-5250U and Core i7-4500U, while the Core i5-3380M's closest competitors include the Xeon X3450 and Core i7-920, showing both occupy similar mid-range positions.

The production status differs: the Xeon is marked end-of-life, while the Core i5-3380M has no such designation. The Xeon launched with a recorded MSRP of $1493, though pricing comparisons are not part of this analysis. Organizations needing ECC reliability and a server socket should pick the Xeon; everyone else should favor the Core i5-3380M for its efficiency, integrated graphics, and slightly better benchmark showing.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon X5492 | Intel Core i5-3380M |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 4 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 3.40 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| Boost Clock | None | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 150 W | 35 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 771 | Intel Socket G2 (988B) |

| Architecture | Core 2 | Ivy Bridge |

| Codename | Harpertown | Ivy Bridge |

| Process Node | 45 nm | 22 nm |

| Die Size | 2x 107 mm² | 118 mm² |

| L2 Cache | 6 MB (per die) | 256 KB (per core) |

| L3 Cache | None | 3 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Not specified |

| Integrated Graphics | None | Intel HD 4000 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release Date | 2008-09-07 | 2012-12-31 |

| Part Number | SLBBD | SR0X7 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The five recorded Cinebench comparisons all favor the Core i5-3380M, but the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Core i5-3380M scores 252 against the Xeon X5492's 249, a 1.2% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 1051 versus 1039, a 1.1% lead. Single-core results follow the same pattern: R20 single-core gives 148 versus 146 (1.4% difference), while R23 single-core gives 353 versus 349 (1.1% difference). The R23 multi-core test shows 2504 versus 2475, again 1.2% apart.

The most significant interpretation from this data is that the Core i5-3380M's 2 cores, with their Ivy Bridge architecture and 3.60 GHz boost capability, fully offset the Xeon X5492's 4-core advantage. The Xeon runs at a fixed 3.40 GHz with an older Core 2 design, and its dual-die L2 cache arrangement appears less efficient for these workloads than the shared L3 cache of the mobile chip.

The Xeon X5492's average benchmark score of 852 sits just above the Core i5-3380M's 838, but this aggregate includes different test suites. The Core i5-3380M additionally records Geekbench results of 1055 multi-core and 505 single-core, which are not available for the Xeon in the database. The percentile rankings place the Xeon at 23 and the Core i5 at 22, effectively identical standing among all CPUs.

Rival comparisons reinforce the closeness. The Xeon X5492's nearest rivals include the Core i5-5250U at 856 (0.4% higher) and the Core i7-4500U at 859 (0.8% higher). The Core i5-3380M's nearest rivals include the Xeon X3450 at 837 (0.1% lower) and the Xeon X5470 at 839 (0.2% higher). Both chips sit in a dense cluster where a few points of benchmark score separate multiple processors.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i5-3380M wins every recorded benchmark comparison, making it the stronger performer in the tested workloads. Its advantages are most pronounced in single-core tests, where the 3.60 GHz boost clock provides a 1.4% edge in Cinebench R20 single-core. The multi-core wins are smaller, around 1.1% to 1.2%, but consistent across R15, R20, and R23 versions. For any Cinebench-based rendering or CPU stress workload, the data shows the Core i5-3380M ahead.

The Xeon X5492 wins in scenarios not captured by these benchmarks. Its ECC memory support is a decisive factor for error-sensitive server workloads, where data corruption is unacceptable. The 150 W TDP allows sustained power delivery that the 35 W mobile chip cannot match over long durations, even if short benchmark runs show parity. The 4-core design provides headroom for workloads that scale beyond the Cinebench test patterns, and the dual-channel DDR2/DDR3 support offers platform flexibility.

The Core i5-3380M wins decisively in mobile or compact deployments. Its 35 W TDP permits passive or small cooling solutions, the integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics removes the need for a discrete GPU, and the 22 nm process runs cooler. The Geekbench scores of 1055 multi-core and 505 single-core, recorded only for this chip, indicate additional performance data beyond the Cinebench suite.

The Xeon's end-of-life production status and 2008 release date place it firmly in legacy server infrastructure, while the Core i5-3380M's 2012 release and active status make it more viable for current systems. Organizations maintaining Socket 771 platforms with existing DDR2 or DDR3 memory infrastructure would find the Xeon a natural fit. Builders creating new compact systems should choose the Core i5-3380M for its efficiency, graphics, and benchmark leadership.