Intel Core i5-3470 vs Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 Comparison

The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 and Intel Core i5-3470 occupy opposite ends of the computing spectrum, and the benchmark data reflects that chasm. The Xeon Platinum 8260 wins every single head-to-head benchmark in the data set, with margins that are not incremental but generational. This comparison is less about a close contest and more about demonstrating the scale of difference between a modern server platform and a legacy desktop processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most striking pattern in the head-to-head results is the consistency of the victory margins. Across all six Cinebench tests, the Xeon Platinum 8260 wins by a deltaPct of roughly 511-512%. This is not a case of one architecture being slightly better; it is a case of one processor delivering about six times the performance in every single-threaded and multi-threaded workload measured.

Looking at the multi-core results, the Xeon Platinum 8260 scores 24,173 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the Core i5-3470 scores 3,957. That is a 510.9% delta in favor of the Xeon. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap is nearly identical at 511.2%, with scores of 10,152 versus 1,661. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test shows the same story: 2,436 for the Xeon against 398 for the i5, a 512.1% advantage.

The single-core results are arguably more telling. The Xeon Platinum 8260 scores 3,412 in Cinebench R23 single-core, compared to 558 for the Core i5-3470. This is a 511.5% delta. The fact that the Xeon wins single-core by the same magnitude as multi-core indicates that the IPC (instructions per clock) advantage is not the only factor; the raw clock speed advantage also plays a role. The Xeon has a boost clock of 3.90 GHz, while the i5-3470 boosts to 3.60 GHz. This is a modest clock advantage, but combined with the architectural improvements, it results in a massive single-thread lead.

The data shows the Xeon winning all six head-to-head benchmarks, with a win count of 6 for the Xeon and 0 for the i5. The average benchmark score for the Xeon is 6,992, while the i5-3470 averages 6,906. This average is remarkably close, but it is skewed by the fact that the i5 has many more benchmark entries in the data set, including PassMark tests where it scores moderately well. The Cinebench tests, which are the only ones shared between the two, tell the real story of absolute dominance by the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is vast. The Xeon Platinum 8260 is built on Cascade Lake-SP, a 14 nm process, while the Core i5-3470 uses Ivy Bridge on a 22 nm node. The Xeon packs 24 cores and 48 threads, compared to just 4 cores and 4 threads on the i5. This is a 6x difference in core count and a 12x difference in thread count, which directly explains the multi-core benchmark results.

Cache configurations are equally divergent. The Xeon has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 1 MB of L2 per core, plus a 35.75 MB shared L3 cache. The i5-3470 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but only 256 KB of L2 per core and a 6 MB shared L3. The Xeon’s L3 cache is nearly six times larger, which is critical for server workloads that repeatedly access large data sets.

The transistor counts reflect the manufacturing era. The Xeon contains 8,000 million transistors, while the i5-3470 has just 1,400 million. The Xeon’s die size is not listed, but the i5-3470 has a die size of 160 mm². The process node difference (14 nm vs 22 nm) allows the Xeon to pack far more transistors into a similar physical footprint.

Memory support is another major divider. The Xeon uses DDR4 memory and supports ECC memory, while the i5-3470 uses DDR3, does not support ECC, and has a dual-channel memory bus with 25.6 GB/s bandwidth. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth is not listed, but the DDR4 support alone indicates a significant improvement in memory throughput potential. The i5-3470 also includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 2500), while the Xeon has none listed, reinforcing its server positioning.

The sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 3647, while the i5-3470 uses Intel Socket 1155. The Xeon’s TDP is 165 watts versus 77 watts for the i5, reflecting the higher core count and performance ceiling. The release dates also differ by over six years, with the i5 launching in May 2012 and the Xeon in December 2018.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon Platinum 8260 wins in every workload category represented by the shared benchmarks. In Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, the Xeon is ahead by over 500%. This makes it the clear choice for any task that involves rendering, simulation, or heavily threaded computation.

The i5-3470’s only advantage is in the broader benchmark suite where it has additional data points. It scores 73,224 in PassMark data compression, 1,189 in data encryption, 3,548 in extended instructions, and 10,871 in floating point math. However, these are standalone scores with no direct comparison to the Xeon, as the Xeon does not have those benchmark entries in the data set. Therefore, they cannot be used to claim a win for the i5.

For practical use, the Xeon is the only option for a server or workstation that demands high core counts, ECC memory, and massive cache. The i5-3470 is an end-of-life desktop part that would struggle with modern multi-threaded applications. The data shows the i5-3470 is in the 63rd percentile of all CPUs, which is the same percentile as the Xeon, but this is a statistical artifact of the different benchmark distributions. The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Xeon is faster in every shared test.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 has 24 cores and 48 threads, while the Intel Core i5-3470 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the performance difference in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8260 scores 24,173, compared to 3,957 for the Core i5-3470, a 510.9% advantage for the Xeon.

Q: Does the Core i5-3470 support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core i5-3470 does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon Platinum 8260 does.

Q: What is the socket difference between the two?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8260 uses Intel Socket 3647, and the Core i5-3470 uses Intel Socket 1155.

Q: Which CPU has a larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon Platinum 8260 has 35.75 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i5-3470 has 6 MB.

Q: What is the release date gap?

A: The Core i5-3470 was released in May 2012, and the Xeon Platinum 8260 was released in December 2018.

Specification Differences

The following specifications differ between the two processors:

• Cores: 24 (Xeon) vs 4 (i5)
• Threads: 48 (Xeon) vs 4 (i5)
• Base Clock: 2.40 GHz (Xeon) vs 3.20 GHz (i5)
• Boost Clock: 3.90 GHz (Xeon) vs 3.60 GHz (i5)
• TDP: 165 W (Xeon) vs 77 W (i5)
• Socket: Intel Socket 3647 (Xeon) vs Intel Socket 1155 (i5)
• Architecture: Cascade Lake (Xeon) vs Ivy Bridge (i5)
• Process Node: 14 nm (Xeon) vs 22 nm (i5)
• Transistors: 8,000 million (Xeon) vs 1,400 million (i5)
• Die Size: Not listed (Xeon) vs 160 mm² (i5)
• L2 Cache: 1 MB per core (Xeon) vs 256 KB per core (i5)
• L3 Cache: 35.75 MB shared (Xeon) vs 6 MB shared (i5)
• Memory Support: DDR4 (Xeon) vs DDR3 (i5)
• Memory Bus: Not listed (Xeon) vs Dual-channel (i5)
• Memory Bandwidth: Not listed (Xeon) vs 25.6 GB/s (i5)
• ECC Memory: Yes (Xeon) vs No (i5)
• Integrated Graphics: None (Xeon) vs Intel HD 2500 (i5)
• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) vs Desktop (i5)
• Production Status: Not listed (Xeon) vs End-of-life (i5)
• Release Date: 2018-12-10 (Xeon) vs 2012-05-31 (i5)
• Launch MSRP: Not listed (Xeon) vs $184 (i5)
• Part Number: SRF9HCD8069504201101 (Xeon) vs SR0T8 (i5)

The Verdict

The benchmark data leaves no room for ambiguity. The Intel Xeon Platinum 8260 is the superior processor in every single shared benchmark, winning all six head-to-head tests with deltas exceeding 510%. Its 24 cores, 48 threads, and 35.75 MB of L3 cache make it a powerhouse for multi-threaded server workloads, and its single-core performance is equally dominant.

The Intel Core i5-3470 is a legacy desktop processor that is end-of-life. It offers integrated graphics and a lower TDP, which are advantages for a basic desktop build, but its 4 cores and 4 threads are insufficient for any modern heavy workload. Its launch MSRP was $184, but that is historical context, not a current value proposition.

Anyone building a server or workstation should choose the Xeon Platinum 8260 without hesitation. The data shows it is over 500% faster in rendering workloads, and its ECC memory support and large cache are essential for data integrity and performance. The Core i5-3470 should only be considered for a retro build or a very basic desktop where power consumption is the primary concern, as its 77-watt TDP is significantly lower than the Xeon’s 165 watts. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the Xeon is the only rational choice based on this benchmark data.