Intel Core i5-4288U vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the Intel Xeon X5560 wins every recorded head-to-head test against the Intel Core i5-4288U. Across five Cinebench workloads spanning multiple versions, the Xeon leads by a consistent margin, with the Core i5 trailing by roughly 18.5% to 18.8% in every case. This uniformity suggests a systemic performance gap rather than workload-specific quirks.

In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 276 against the Core i5's 225, a delta of -18.5% for the mobile chip. The R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 1154 versus 939, again -18.6%. The R23 multicore result repeats the story, with the Xeon at 2749 and the Core i5 at 2237, another -18.6% deficit.

Single-core results do not favor the smaller chip either. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon posts 162 while the Core i5 manages 132, a -18.5% gap. The R23 single-core test shows the Xeon at 388 versus 315, a -18.8% difference. Notably, the Core i5 has a higher boost clock listed (3.10 GHz versus 3.20 GHz for the Xeon), yet the Xeon still wins single-threaded tests. This indicates that architectural efficiency, not just clock speed, drives the outcome.

The overall average benchmark score confirms the trend. The Xeon averages 946 across all recorded tests, while the Core i5 averages 927. Both sit at the 25th percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same quartile, but the Xeon holds a measurable edge in raw output. The Core i5's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i3-4350T at 926 (0.1% delta) and the Intel Celeron G6900TE at 925 (0.3% delta), while the Xeon's nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium Gold G5400T at 946 (0% delta) and the AMD Ryzen 5 PRO 3500U at 947 (-0.1% delta). These adjacent scores underscore that both chips sit in a dense performance band, but the Xeon sits at the top of that band.

The head-to-head table records zero wins for the Core i5 and five for the Xeon. There is no benchmark in the database where the mobile chip outperforms the server part. The consistency of the ~18.6% delta across different Cinebench versions, which use different rendering workloads and scaling factors, strongly suggests the Xeon's additional cores and threads translate directly into sustained multi-threaded superiority, while its single-core advantage comes from a higher base clock and more efficient per-thread execution.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-4288U is a Haswell-generation mobile chip, fabricated on Intel's 22 nm process node. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a 118 mm² die. The Intel Xeon X5560, codenamed Gainestown, belongs to the Nehalem generation and uses a 45 nm process node, with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The newer node allows the Core i5 to fit more transistors into a much smaller area, yet the Xeon still wins on performance, highlighting that transistor count and node size do not guarantee benchmark dominance.

Core configuration differs sharply. The Core i5 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. That doubling of physical cores and logical threads is the primary driver of the multicore benchmark gap. In the R23 multicore test, the Xeon's 2749 versus the Core i5's 2237 represents an 18.6% advantage, which aligns with the additional compute resources available to the Xeon.

Cache hierarchies also diverge. Both chips share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the L3 cache differs: the Core i5 has 3 MB shared, while the Xeon has 8 MB shared. That extra 5 MB of shared cache likely benefits the Xeon in workloads that reuse data across cores, though the benchmark data does not isolate cache effects directly.

The Core i5 includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 5100, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. This is a defining feature split: the mobile chip can drive a display without a discrete GPU, while the server chip relies on external graphics hardware. The Core i5 also lacks ECC memory support, while the Xeon supports ECC, reflecting its server/workstation positioning.

Memory support shows another divergence. Both support DDR3, but the Xeon uses a triple-channel memory bus, while the Core i5's memory bus is not specified in the database. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 2 support, while the Core i5's PCIe generation is not recorded. These platform-level differences matter for system design but do not directly appear in the Cinebench scores.

The Core i5 is marked as a Mobile segment part, released on June 3, 2013, while the Xeon is a Server/Workstation part, released on March 29, 2009, and is listed as end-of-life. The Xeon predates the Core i5 by over four years, yet still outperforms it in every recorded benchmark, evidence of the performance headroom of a multi-core server design from an older process node.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Xeon X5560 wins every benchmark category. There is no workload in the database where the Core i5-4288U takes the lead. That means for any Cinebench-based rendering task, whether single-core or multi-core, the Xeon is the superior choice.

The Xeon's wins are consistent across versions: R15, R20, and R23, both single and multi-threaded. Its single-core advantage (388 versus 315 in R23, 162 versus 132 in R20) shows that even in lightly threaded tasks, the server chip's higher base clock (2.80 GHz versus 2.60 GHz) and boost clock (3.20 GHz versus 3.10 GHz) give it a real edge. The Core i5's boost clock is only 0.1 GHz lower, yet the gap is nearly 19%, indicating that per-clock efficiency favors the older architecture in these tests.

For users prioritizing multi-threaded throughput, the Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads are decisive. The R23 multicore score of 2749 versus 2237 is a 22.9% raw difference in favor of the Xeon, which is larger than the average delta and suggests that the extra cores scale well in rendering workloads. The R20 multicore test shows a similar ratio, 1154 versus 939.

The Core i5 offers no recorded wins, but its advantages are qualitative. It has integrated graphics, a smaller die size, and a much lower TDP (28 W versus 95 W). For a mobile platform, the Core i5 is the only viable option given the socket (Intel BGA 1168 versus Intel Socket 1366) and market segment. The Core i5 is also not marked as end-of-life, while the Xeon is, which may matter for long-term system planning, though the database does not provide production status for the Core i5.

In terms of nearest rivals, the Core i5's average score of 927 places it just below the Xeon's 946, but both are within a narrow band. The Core i5's closest competitor, the Intel Core i7-870, is only 0.1% faster, while the Xeon's closest, the AMD Phenom II X6 1045T, is exactly at parity. These comparisons show that the Xeon sits slightly higher in the performance hierarchy, but neither chip is a standout in the broader CPU landscape.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Core i5 has 2 cores and 4 threads; the Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are 2.60 GHz for the Core i5 and 2.80 GHz for the Xeon. Boost clocks are 3.10 GHz and 3.20 GHz, respectively. TDP marks the largest gap: 28 W for the Core i5 versus 95 W for the Xeon, a 3.4x difference in power draw.

The process node differs: 22 nm for the Core i5 versus 45 nm for the Xeon. Transistor counts are 1,400 million versus 731 million, and die sizes are 118 mm² versus 263 mm². L3 cache is 3 MB shared on the Core i5 versus 8 MB shared on the Xeon. L1 and L2 caches are identical per core: 64 KB and 256 KB, respectively.

Memory support shows DDR3 for both, but the Xeon lists a triple-channel memory bus, while the Core i5's memory bus is not recorded. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. The Xeon lists PCIe Gen 2, while the Core i5 has no PCIe generation specified. Integrated graphics are present on the Core i5 (Intel HD 5100) and absent on the Xeon.

Sockets differ entirely: Intel BGA 1168 for the Core i5 versus Intel Socket 1366 for the Xeon. Market segments are Mobile versus Server/Workstation. Release dates are June 3, 2013, for the Core i5 and March 29, 2009, for the Xeon. The Xeon is marked end-of-life, while the Core i5's production status is not listed. Part numbers are SR189 for the Core i5 and SLBF4 for the Xeon. Neither chip has a launch MSRP recorded in the database.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X5560 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-4288U has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference?

A: The Xeon X5560 averages 946 across all recorded benchmarks, while the Core i5-4288U averages 927. The Xeon is ahead by roughly 2% in average score.

Q: Does the Core i5 have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Core i5-4288U includes Intel HD 5100 graphics. The Xeon X5560 has no integrated graphics.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon X5560 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-4288U does not.

Q: How large is the single-core performance gap in Cinebench R23?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 388 versus 315 for the Core i5, a delta of -18.8% for the mobile chip.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Core i5-4288U has a TDP of 28 W, while the Xeon X5560 has a TDP of 95 W.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear conclusion: the Intel Xeon X5560 outperforms the Intel Core i5-4288U in every benchmark recorded in the database. With 4 cores, 8 threads, an 8 MB L3 cache, and a higher base clock, the Xeon delivers consistently better Cinebench scores across all versions and thread counts. The Core i5's 22 nm process and integrated graphics cannot compensate for the Xeon's raw compute resources.

Users who need maximum rendering throughput, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, should choose the Xeon X5560. Its 18.6% average advantage in head-to-head tests is substantial and uniform. The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and a triple-channel memory bus, making it suitable for server or workstation environments where data integrity and memory bandwidth are critical.

The Core i5-4288U is the right choice only for mobile platforms, given its BGA 1168 socket and 28 W TDP, which enable thin-and-light designs. Its integrated graphics allow for display output without a discrete GPU. However, from a pure performance standpoint, the database shows no scenario where the Core i5 wins. The Xeon's end-of-life status may be a concern for new deployments, but for existing Socket 1366 systems, it remains the stronger part. The verdict is unambiguous: the Xeon is the performer, the Core i5 is the power-efficient mobile option.