Intel Core i5-4200U vs Intel Xeon E5450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded benchmark data shows a consistent and decisive advantage for the Intel Xeon E5450 across every shared test. In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the Xeon scores 221 against the Core i5-4200U's 186, a lead of 18.8%. That same 18.8% margin repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 923 versus 777.

The single-core results tell a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon records 130, while the Core i5-4200U manages 109, a 19.3% advantage for the older server chip. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Xeon at 310 and the mobile processor at 261, another 18.8% gap. The multi-core R23 test follows with 2198 for the Xeon and 1852 for the i5, maintaining the 18.7% lead.

The head-to-head table lists all five wins going to the Xeon E5450, with zero wins for the Core i5-4200U. The consistency of the delta, hovering between 18.7% and 19.3% across every workload, suggests a fundamental performance ceiling for the mobile chip rather than a test-specific quirk. The Xeon's performance percentile ranks at 20, matching the Core i5-4200U's 20th percentile among all CPUs in the database. Their average benchmark scores also sit close: 756 for the Xeon and 746 for the mobile part, a difference of about 1.3%.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Xeon E5450 is a 45 nm part built on the Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown. It has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, running at a fixed 3.00 GHz base clock with no boost capability. The die is composed of two separate 107 mm² pieces, totaling 820 million transistors. The cache arrangement includes 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die. It uses a dual-channel memory controller supporting DDR2 and DDR3, with the actual memory type depending on the motherboard. ECC memory is supported, which aligns with its server and workstation market segment. It connects via PCI Express Gen 2.

The Core i5-4200U is a 22-nanometer Haswell part, built for mobile devices. It has 2 physical cores and 4 threads, with a 1.60 GHz base clock that can boost up to 2.60 GHz. The die is a single 118 mm² piece with 1,400 million transistors, a denser and more modern process. It has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 3 MB of shared L3 cache. It supports DDR3 memory, but the database does not list a memory bus width or bandwidth figure. ECC memory is not supported, and the chip is soldered into a BGA 1168 package. It includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4400, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics.

The release dates separate these platforms by more than five years. The Xeon was released in November 2007, while the Core i5 came in June 2013. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, whereas the mobile processor has no recorded production status. The power envelopes differ drastically, with the Xeon rated at 80 W and the Core i5 at 15 W, but the benchmark data shows that the higher power budget does not translate into a performance advantage in these tests.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Xeon E5450 wins every recorded multi-core test. It scores 221 vs 186 in R15, 923 vs 777 in R20, and 2198 vs 1852 in R23, a consistent lead of 18.8% in each case.

Q: Does the Core i5-4200U have any advantage over the Xeon E5450?

A: The recorded data shows no benchmark win for the mobile chip. However, it does have integrated graphics (Intel HD 4400), a smaller TDP (15 W versus 80 W), and a more modern 22 nm process node, but no performance test in the database records a win.

Q: How do the two processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon E5450 leads by 19.3% in Cinebench R20 single-core (130 versus 109) and by 18.8% in Cinebench R23 single-core (310 versus 261). No single-core test shows the Core i5 ahead.

Q: What is the memory support difference?

A: The Xeon E5450 supports DDR2 and DDR3 depending on motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus and ECC memory. The Core i5-4200U supports only DDR3, without ECC and without a recorded memory bus specification.

Q: What do the percentile rankings indicate?

A: Both processors sit at the 20th percentile compared to all CPUs in the database. This means the Xeon's performance lead does not make it a high-end part overall; it just outperforms the mobile chip in these specific workloads.

Q: Is the Xeon E5450 a mobile processor?

A: No, it is a server's department processor using socket 771, with a 80 W TDP and no integrated graphics. The Core i5-4200U is a mobile processor with a 15 W TDP.

The Verdict

Based solely on the recorded numbers, the Intel Xeon E5450 is the stronger performer in every benchmark test included in the database. It leads the Core i5-4200U by roughly 19% across all Cinebench workloads, both single-core and multi-core. The Xeon's 4 physical cores and 3.00 GHz fixed clock provide more raw compute than the Core i5's 2 cores with a 1.60 GHz base clock, despite the newer architecture of the Haswell part.

The Core i5-4200U's only advantages are in areas not measured by the benchmarks: integrated graphics, lower power consumption, and a newer manufacturing process. It has no recorded benchmark win, and its average score of 746 trails the Xeon's 756 average. The Xeon also benefits from ECC memory support and a dual-channel memory bus, though the database does not record actual memory bandwidth numbers.

The data does not support choosing the Core i5 for performance reasons. The Xeon's 100% win record in the head-to-head tests makes it the clear choice for compute-heavy tasks, provided the user can accommodate an 80 W TDP and a Socket 771 platform. The Core i5's 15 W TDP and integrated graphics make it a sensible power-constrained or space-constrained choice, but those considerations fall outside the recorded performance metrics.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every specification field recorded. The Xeon E5450 has 4 cores and 4 threads, while the Core i5-4200U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon runs at 3.00 GHz with no boost clock; the Core i5 runs at 1.60 GHz with a 2.60 GHz boost. The Xeon carries an 80 W TDP, the Core i5 just 15 W. The Xeon uses Socket 771, the Core i5 uses BGA 1168. The Xeon has a 45 nm process with 820 million transistors and a dual-die design of 2x 107 mm²; the Core i5 uses 22 nm, 1,400 million transistors, and a single 118 mm² die.

Cache layouts differ: the Xeon has 64 KB L1 per core and 6 MB L2 per die, with no L3. The Core i5 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 3 MB shared L3. Memory support: the Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3, dual-channel, with ECC; the Core i5 supports only DDR3, no ECC. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 2 and no integrated graphics; the Core i5 is not recorded with a PCIe field but includes Intel HD 4400 graphics. The Xeon's market segment is server/workstation, and the Core i5 is mobile. The Xeon has a recorded launch MSRP of $915, while no launch MSRP is recorded for the Core i5.

Where Each One Wins

Intel Xeon E5450:

The data shows the Xeon wins every benchmark test in the database. It is the choice for multi-threaded workloads like rendering, video encoding, or any compute task that can use four full cores. Its single-core performance also leads, so even lightly threaded applications see a benefit. The ECC memory support and dual-channel memory bus make it suitable for server or workstation reliability, though no memory bandwidth is recorded. The PCIe Gen 2 support adds to its workstation credentials. The 80 W TDP is a trade-off for that performance.

Intel Core i5-4200U: The benchmark results do not list any test where this processor leads. Its strengths are outside the measured performance: integrated graphics for systems without a discrete GPU, a 15 W TDP for fanless or thin designs, and a 22 nm process that reduces power consumption. It has no ECC support and only 2 physical cores, but the 4 threads give it some parallel capability. For a user who prioritizes low power, integrated graphics, and a modern socket, the Core i5 is the logical pick. For anyone prioritizing raw compute performance, the Xeon is the only choice based on the recorded data.

The Xeon's average benchmark score of 756 versus 746 for the Core i5, combined with its perfect 5-0 record in the head-to-head, leaves no room for ambiguity in the rankings. The Core i5's newer architecture and higher transistor count (1,400 million versus 820 million) do not produce a performance lead in any recorded test. The Xeon's suggest that older, higher-clocked server parts can outperform newer mobile chips in CPU-bound workloads, despite a much larger power envelope.