Intel Core i5-4330M vs Intel Xeon W3550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Xeon W3550 takes all five of the five recorded Cinebench tests, but the margins are narrow each time. The Xeon W3550 scores 279 in the R15 multicore run against the i5-4330M's 274, a 1.8% advantage. The same 1.3.80 GHz mobile chip trails by the identical 1.8% margin in every other head-to-head result. In R20 multicore, the Xeon posts 1166 over the i5's 1145. Single-core R20 shows 164 versus 161. R23 multicore lands at 2778 for the Xeon, 2727 for the i5. R23 single-core is 392 versus 385.

That uniformity is striking. The Xeon wins five of five recorded tests, yet no single test separates the pair by more than 1.8%. The two processors are effectively trading blows within measurement noise, with the Xeon's four physical cores and eight threads providing a consistent, if small, edge over the i5's two cores and four threads. The i5's higher boost clock, 3.80 GHz versus the Xeon's 3.33 GHz, closes much of the gap in single-threaded work, but it does not flip a single result.

Looking at the aggregate database scores, the Xeon holds a 956 average against the i5's 938. That is an 18-point difference, roughly 1.9%, which aligns with the head-to-head deltas. The i5 sits at the 25th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon is at the 26th. Both are firmly mid-pack parts by modern standards. For a builder choosing between them, the recorded data says the Xeon is slightly faster everywhere, but the difference is small enough that platform and power constraints should dominate the decision.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU wins in multicore performance?

A: The Xeon W3550 wins all four recorded multicore tests. It leads the R15 multicore run 279 to 274, the R20 multicore run 1166 to 1145, and the R23 multicore run 2778 to 2727. The margin is 1.8% in each case.

Q: Is the Core i5-4330M better in single-core tests?

A: No. The Xeon also wins both single-core tests, but by the same slim margin. R20 single-core is 164 for the Xeon versus 161 for the i5. R23 single-core is 392 versus 385. Despite the i5's higher boost clock of 3.80 GHz against the Xeon's 3.33 GHz, the Xeon still comes out ahead.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon's average benchmark score is 956, while the i5's is 938. This gives the Xeon roughly a 1.9% overall advantage, consistent with the 1.8% deltas seen in the individual Cinebench runs.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Xeon W3550 has four cores and eight threads. The Core i5-4330M has two cores and four threads. The Xeon's extra physical cores explain its consistent lead in multicore workloads.

Q: What is the difference in their power requirements?

A: The Xeon is rated at 130 watts TDP, while the i5 is rated at 37 watts. That is a substantial difference, reflecting the Xeon's larger die and older process node.

Q: Do both support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon W3550 supports ECC memory, while the Core i5-4330M does not. The Xeon also uses a triple-channel memory bus, whereas the i5's memory bus is not specified in the database.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras of Intel design. The Core i5-4330M uses the Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, with 1,400 million transistors on a 118 mm² die. The Xeon W3550 uses the older Nehalem architecture, specifically the Bloomfield variant, on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Xeon's die is more than twice the physical size of the i5's, yet it packs roughly half the transistor count. That is the consequence of the older, less dense manufacturing process.

Cache layouts also differ. Both processors share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is a major split. The i5 has 3 MB shared L3, while the Xeon has 8 MB shared L3. That extra cache helps the Xeon compensate for its lower boost clock in single-threaded workloads and feeds its additional cores in multithreaded ones.

The integrated graphics situation is another clear divide. The i5-4330M includes Intel HD 5000 graphics, which is typical for a mobile part. The Xeon W3550 has no integrated graphics at all, as expected for a server or workstation processor. The Xeon does support ECC memory and uses a triple-channel memory bus, both standard for its market segment. The i5 has no ECC support and its memory bus is not recorded in the database.

The Xeon is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i5 has no recorded production status. The Xeon's part number is SLBEY. The i5's part number is not listed.

Specification Differences

The table below isolates the fields where the two processors differ, based solely on the recorded data.

| Specification | Intel Core i5-4330M | Intel Xeon W3550 |

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

| Cores | 2 | 4 |

| Threads | 4 | 8 |

| Base clock | 2.80 GHz | 3.07 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.80 GHz | 3.33 GHz |

| TDP | 37 W | 130 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket G3 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Architecture | Haswell | Nehalem |

| Codename | Haswell | Bloomfield |

| Process node | 22 nm | 45 nm |

| Transistors | 1,400 million | 731 million |

| Die size | 118 mm² | 263 mm² |

| L3 cache | 3 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |

| ECC memory support | No | Yes |

| Integrated graphics | Intel HD 5000 | None |

| Market segment | Mobile | Server/Workstation |

| Production status | Not recorded | End-of-life |

| Release date | 2013-08-31 | 2009-08-08 |

| Memory bus | Not recorded | Triple-channel |

| PCIe generation | Not recorded | Gen 2 |

The i5 has a higher boost clock by 0.47 GHz and a much lower TDP by 93 watts. The Xeon counters with a higher base clock, twice the cores and threads, larger L3 cache, and ECC support. The i5 is a mobile part on a 22 nm process; the Xeon is a workstation/server part on 45 nm.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Xeon W3550 wins every recorded test against the Core i5-4330M. The margin is small, 1.8% across the board, but it is consistent. The Xeon's average score of 956 beats the i5's 938, placing it one percentile higher in the database. If raw performance is the only criterion, the Xeon is the pick.

However, the data also reveals why this is not a simple recommendation. The Xeon draws 130 watts against the i5's 37 watts. It requires a Socket 1366 motherboard and has no integrated graphics, meaning a separate GPU is mandatory. It is an end-of-life part from 2009. The i5 is a 2013 mobile chip on Socket G3 with built-in Intel HD 5000 graphics, making it suitable for compact or laptop builds where power and space are constrained.

For a builder with an existing Socket 1366 workstation board, the Xeon offers a modest but real performance upgrade over the i5. For anyone assembling a new system, the i5's lower power draw and integrated graphics make it the more practical choice, despite losing every benchmark. The performance gap is small enough that platform compatibility and power delivery should decide the matter.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon W3550 wins in every recorded benchmark category. It takes the R15 multicore test by 5 points, the R20 multicore test by 21 points, the R20 single-core test by 3 points, the R23 multicore test by 51 points, and the R23 single-core test by 7 points. Its four cores, eight threads, and 8 MB of L3 cache give it a structural advantage in both multithreaded and single-threaded workloads, even against the i5's higher 3.80 GHz boost clock.

The Core i5-4330M has no benchmark wins in the recorded data, but it wins in other ways. Its 37 watt TDP is 93 watts lower than the Xeon's, which is a decisive advantage for mobile or small-form-factor builds. Its integrated Intel HD 5000 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. Its 22 nm process and 1,400 million transistors on a smaller die indicate a much more power-efficient design. The i5 also has a newer release date, 2013 versus 2009, and it is not marked end-of-life.

The Xeon's wins are in raw compute. The i5's wins are in efficiency and practicality. The recorded data shows the Xeon is faster everywhere, but the i5 is the part that fits into a wider range of modern systems without a dedicated graphics card or a high-wattage power supply. Choose the Xeon for maximum performance on an existing workstation platform. Choose the i5 for a self-contained, low-power build where the 1.8% performance deficit is an acceptable trade.