Intel Core i5-4330M vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5560 and the Intel Core i5-4330M sit at opposite ends of the hardware spectrum: a 2009-era server/workstation part with eight threads versus a 2013 mobile chip with four. Despite their different lineages, the benchmark data shows they land in the same performance tier, with average scores of 946 and 938 respectively. The Xeon edges out the Core i5 in every single recorded test, but the margins are razor-thin, ranging from 0.6% to 0.8%. This creates an unusual dynamic where the older, larger, more power-hungry server chip consistently wins, yet the mobile part’s efficiency and feature set make it a compelling alternative in specific use cases.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon X5560 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons, but the real story is the context behind those victories. In multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon’s 8 threads versus the Core i5’s 4 threads should theoretically give it a significant advantage, yet the actual deltas are minimal. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2749 against the Core i5’s 2727, a 0.8% lead. That margin is effectively a tie in real-world terms, meaning the Core i5-4330M’s newer Haswell architecture is nearly compensating for having half the threads. The Xeon’s wins are consistent, but they are not decisive; it wins because of a slight edge in every test, not because of a dominant performance in any single category.

The Core i5-4330M, despite losing every benchmark, wins in a broader sense through its platform characteristics. It has a 37W TDP versus the Xeon’s 95W, making it far more suitable for compact or thermally constrained systems. It includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 5000), which the Xeon completely lacks, so a system built around the Core i5 needs no discrete GPU for basic display output. The Core i5 also uses the Intel Socket G3, a mobile platform, while the Xeon requires the older Intel Socket 1366 server platform. For users prioritizing low power consumption, integrated graphics, or a modern mobile form factor, the Core i5 is the practical choice even though it trails in raw compute scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon X5560 leads with a score of 388, while the Intel Core i5-4330M scores 385. The Xeon’s advantage is 0.8%.

Q: How do the multi-core scores compare in Cinebench R20?

A: The Intel Xeon X5560 scores 1154, and the Intel Core i5-4330M scores 1145. The Xeon wins by 0.8%, a margin of just 9 points.

Q: Does the Core i5-4330M support ECC memory?

A: No. The Core i5-4330M does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon X5560 does.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between these two CPUs?

A: The Intel Xeon X5560 has a TDP of 95W, while the Intel Core i5-4330M has a TDP of 37W. The Core i5 consumes less than half the power budget.

Q: Are these processors comparable in their average benchmark scores?

A: Yes, they are extremely close. The Xeon X5560 has an average benchmark score of 946, and the Core i5-4330M has an average of 938, a difference of less than 1%.

Q: Which CPU has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Intel Core i5-4330M has integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 5000. The Intel Xeon X5560 has no integrated graphics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results show a pattern of near-misses for the Core i5-4330M. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon X5560 scores 276 against the Core i5’s 274, a 0.7% lead. Moving to Cinebench R20, the Xeon scores 1154, and the Core i5 scores 1145, again a 0.8% difference. The single-core tests follow the same trend: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 162, the Core i5 scores 161, a 0.6% margin; in Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 388, the Core i5 scores 385, a 0.8% margin. The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon’s 2749 beats the Core i5’s 2727 by 22 points, still only a 0.8% difference.

The consistency of these results is notable. The Xeon wins every test, but the largest delta is 0.8%, which is within run-to-run noise for most benchmarking. The Core i5-4330M’s 4 threads are clearly holding it back; if it had 8 threads, the Haswell architecture would likely push it ahead. The data suggests that in a purely computational sense, these two CPUs are functionally equivalent for most tasks. The Xeon’s wins are real but negligible in practical application, making the decision between them a matter of platform and power constraints rather than raw performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge sharply in core and thread counts. The Intel Xeon X5560 features 4 cores and 8 threads, while the Intel Core i5-4330M has 2 cores and 4 threads. Both have a base clock of 2.80 GHz, but the boost clocks differ: the Xeon boosts to 3.20 GHz, while the Core i5 boosts higher to 3.80 GHz. The Xeon has a TDP of 95W, whereas the Core i5 is rated at 37W. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, and the Core i5 uses Intel Socket G3.

Cache configurations also differ substantially. The Xeon X5560 has an 8 MB shared L3 cache, while the Core i5-4330M has only 3 MB shared L3. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the Xeon’s additional cores give it more total L2. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Xeon uses triple-channel memory, whereas the Core i5’s memory bus is not specified in the data. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the Core i5. The Xeon has PCIe Gen 2 support; the Core i5’s PCIe information is not listed. Integrated graphics are present only on the Core i5 (Intel HD 5000); the Xeon has none.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two is significant. The Intel Xeon X5560 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, using a 45 nm process node from Intel. It contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The Intel Core i5-4330M is based on the Haswell architecture, also codenamed Haswell, fabricated on a 22 nm process node. It packs 1,400 million transistors into a much smaller 118 mm² die. This represents a major advancement in manufacturing density and efficiency, which explains how the Core i5 can nearly match the Xeon despite having half the cores.

The Xeon is part of the Xeon (Gainestown) generation, targeting the server and workstation market segment, and is marked as end-of-life. The Core i5 is from the Core i5 (Haswell) generation, targeting the mobile segment. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache (8 MB vs 3 MB) helps compensate for its older architecture and slower boost clock. The Core i5’s higher boost clock (3.80 GHz vs 3.20 GHz) and smaller 22 nm process give it an efficiency advantage, evident in its 37W TDP. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not an option for either. The Xeon was released in March 2009, while the Core i5 came out in August 2013, a gap of over four years that is clearly reflected in their architectural differences.