CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i5-4288U and Intel Xeon W3540 occupy opposite corners of the Intel lineup, yet their benchmark scores land remarkably close. The data shows a clean sweep for the Xeon in every head-to-head test, but the magnitude of those wins is surprisingly narrow. The Xeon W3540 takes all five available Cinebench comparisons, with deltas between -15.6% and -15.9% across the board. This consistency suggests a fundamental throughput advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Core i5-4288U sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon W3540 sits at the 24th, making them statistical neighbors in the broader performance landscape. The verdict depends entirely on platform priorities: the Xeon wins every compute race, but the Core i5 offers a fully integrated, low-power mobile package with graphics built in.

The Verdict

The Xeon W3540 is the clear performance winner, and the data leaves no room for ambiguity. It beats the Core i5-4288U in Cinebench R15 multicore with 267 points against 225, a -15.7% delta. That pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multicore (1113 vs 939, -15.6%), R20 singlecore (157 vs 132, -15.9%), R23 multicore (2652 vs 2237, -15.6%), and R23 singlecore (374 vs 315, -15.8%). Every single benchmark in the head-to-head tables favors the Xeon, giving it a 5-0 win record. The Xeon achieves this with a 130W TDP and a 45nm process node, while the Core i5 operates at 28W on 22nm. For anyone prioritizing raw compute, the Xeon is the only choice based on these numbers.

The Core i5-4288U, however, is not without its own case. It is a mobile part with a 28W TDP, integrated Intel HD 5100 graphics, and a much smaller 118 mm² die size. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, draws 130W, and uses a 263 mm² die. The Core i5's average benchmark score is 927, essentially tied with the Xeon's 913. The nearest rivals for the Core i5 include the Intel Core i7-4600U at 931 (a -0.5% delta) and the Intel Core i7-870 at 928 (-0.1%), indicating it competes with older desktop quad-cores despite having only two physical cores. The Xeon's nearest rivals include the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U at 908 (0.5% delta) and the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U at 917 (-0.5%), placing it in similar company. The choice is simple: the Xeon for compute, the Core i5 for mobility and integration.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two parts spans five years of Intel design philosophy. The Core i5-4288U uses the Haswell architecture on a 22nm process node, with 1,400 million transistors packed into a 118 mm² die. The Xeon W3540 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, on a 45nm node with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The process shrink is dramatic: Haswell crams nearly twice the transistors into less than half the die area. This explains why the Core i5 can deliver comparable average scores (927 vs 913) while consuming only 28W against the Xeon's 130W.

Core counts tell a different story. The Core i5 offers 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon offers 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon doubles the core and thread count, yet its performance advantage is only around 15%. This implies that the Core i5's Haswell architecture has significantly higher per-clock efficiency. The base clocks are close (2.60 GHz for the Core i5, 2.93 GHz for the Xeon), and boost clocks are nearly identical (3.10 GHz vs 3.20 GHz). The Core i5 compensates for fewer cores with a newer design that extracts more work per clock.

Cache hierarchies diverge as well. Both share 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the L3 cache is 3 MB shared on the Core i5 versus 8 MB shared on the Xeon. The Xeon's larger L3 is a direct consequence of its four-core design and server heritage. The Xeon supports ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3, while the Core i5 does not support ECC and lists only generic DDR3 support without a memory bus specification. The Xeon also features PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i5's PCIe information is absent from the data. The Core i5 integrates Intel HD 5100 graphics; the Xeon has none. These are fundamentally different platforms: a mobile SoC-style part versus a workstation/server processor.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W3540 wins every benchmark, but the margins are tight enough to warrant scrutiny. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 267 against the Core i5's 225, a -15.7% delta. This is the smallest absolute gap in the dataset, with only 42 points separating them. The Core i5's two cores with Hyper-Threading (4 threads) manage to stay within striking distance of the Xeon's four cores with Hyper-Threading (8 threads). That is a notable achievement for a 28W mobile chip.

Cinebench R20 multicore shows a similar pattern: 1113 for the Xeon, 939 for the Core i5, a -15.6% delta. The single-core tests are where the architecture difference becomes most interesting. In R20 singlecore, the Xeon scores 157 against 132, a -15.9% delta. In R23 singlecore, the Xeon scores 374 against 315, a -15.8% delta. These single-core results are surprising because the Core i5 has a newer architecture and a higher boost clock relative to its base. Yet the Xeon still wins by nearly 16%. The data suggests that the Xeon's higher base clock (2.93 GHz vs 2.60 GHz) and possibly more aggressive boost behavior (3.20 GHz vs 3.10 GHz) are enough to overcome the architectural advantage of Haswell.

The multicore results are more predictable. The Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads should theoretically provide a 2x advantage over the Core i5's 2 cores and 4 threads. Instead, the advantage is only about 15.6%. This indicates that the Core i5's Haswell design is dramatically more efficient per thread. The R23 multicore test shows 2652 for the Xeon and 2237 for the Core i5, a 415-point gap. The Xeon's wins are consistent across all five tests, with deltas ranging from -15.6% to -15.9%. No test shows the Core i5 pulling ahead, and no test shows the Xeon extending its lead beyond 16%.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon W3540 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-4288U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon doubles both counts.

Q: How does the power consumption differ between the two?

A: The Core i5-4288U has a TDP of 28W, while the Xeon W3540 has a TDP of 130W. The Core i5 consumes less than a quarter of the power.

Q: Does the Core i5-4288U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i5-4288U includes Intel HD 5100 integrated graphics. The Xeon W3540 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon W3540 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-4288U does not. The Xeon also supports triple-channel DDR3, while the Core i5's memory bus is not specified.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The Core i5-4288U has an average benchmark score of 927, while the Xeon W3540 has an average of 913. The Core i5 is slightly ahead on average despite losing every head-to-head test.

Q: Which processor has the larger L3 cache?

A: The Xeon W3540 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Core i5-4288U has 3 MB of shared L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W3540 wins in every compute benchmark, making it the definitive choice for raw processing power. Its victories span all five Cinebench tests, including both multicore and singlecore workloads. The 4-core, 8-thread configuration with 8 MB of L3 cache is clearly suited for multi-threaded rendering and heavy computation. The Xeon also supports ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3, which are critical for workstation reliability and memory bandwidth. Its 130W TDP and server/workstation market segment confirm its intended use in always-on, compute-heavy environments.

The Core i5-4288U wins on efficiency and integration. Its 28W TDP makes it suitable for mobile devices, and the integrated Intel HD 5100 graphics eliminates the need for a separate GPU. The 22nm process node with 1,400 million transistors on a 118 mm² die demonstrates a much denser, more power-efficient design. The Core i5's average benchmark score of 927 is actually higher than the Xeon's 913, indicating that in aggregated performance across multiple tests, the Core i5 holds its own. The Core i5 is the right pick for laptops and compact systems where power draw and physical space are constraints.

The head-to-head data shows no scenario where the Core i5 wins, but the context matters. The Xeon's wins are all within the 15-16% range, which is modest given its 2x core advantage. The Core i5's nearest rival list includes the Intel Core i7-4600U (a mobile chip) and the Intel Core i7-870 (a desktop part), showing it punches above its weight class. The Xeon's nearest rivals are all low-power or budget parts, including the AMD Ryzen 3 3250U and Intel Pentium Gold G6405T, suggesting it is now competing in the entry-level segment despite its server heritage.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every core specification. The Core i5-4288U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon W3540 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the Core i5 and 2.93 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 3.10 GHz for the Core i5 and 3.20 GHz for the Xeon. The TDP is 28W for the Core i5 and 130W for the Xeon. The sockets are completely different: Intel BGA 1168 for the Core i5 (a soldered mobile socket) versus Intel Socket 1366 for the Xeon (a desktop/server socket).

The architecture and process nodes are generations apart. The Core i5 uses Haswell on a 22nm node, while the Xeon uses Nehalem (Bloomfield) on a 45nm node. Transistor counts are 1,400 million for the Core i5 and 731 million for the Xeon. Die sizes are 118 mm² for the Core i5 and 263 mm² for the Xeon. The L3 cache is 3 MB shared on the Core i5 versus 8 MB shared on the Xeon. Memory support shows DDR3 for both, but the Xeon adds triple-channel capability and ECC support; the Core i5 has neither ECC nor a specified memory bus. The Core i5 includes Intel HD 5100 integrated graphics; the Xeon has none. The Core i5 is a mobile part, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part. The Xeon has a PCIe Gen 2 specification, while the Core i5 has no PCIe information listed. The Core i5 was released on June 3, 2013, and the Xeon on March 29, 2009. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life, while the Core i5's production status is not specified. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, and neither has a launch MSRP listed.