Intel Core i5-4460T vs Intel Xeon E5645 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmark tests in this comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon E5645 wins all five recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests, with a 5 to 0 win count. The Intel Core i5-4460T does not win any of the shared benchmark comparisons.

Q: How large is the performance gap in multi-core workloads?

A: The Xeon E5645 leads by 34.5% in Cinebench R15 multi-core (421 vs. 313), by 34.7% in R20 multi-core (1758 vs. 1305), and by 34.7% in R23 multi-core (4187 vs. 3109).

Q: Does the Core i5-4460T have any advantage in single-core tests?

A: No. The recorded data shows the Xeon E5645 also wins single-core tests, posting scores of 248 in R20 single-core and 591 in R23 single-core, compared to 183 and 438 for the Core i5-4460T respectively.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The Xeon E5645 has 6 cores and 12 threads, while the Core i5-4460T has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5645 supports ECC memory, whereas the Core i5-4460T does not.

Q: How do the two processors compare in overall benchmark average?

A: The Xeon E5645 has an average benchmark score of 1211, while the Core i5-4460T has an average score of 1190. The Xeon sits at the 34th percentile of all CPUs, and the Core i5 sits at the 33rd percentile.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different design eras and target different market segments. The Xeon E5645 is based on Westmere-EP architecture, built on a 32 nm process node, and is classified as a Server/Workstation part. The Core i5-4460T uses Haswell architecture on a 22 nm process node, and is a Desktop part. These architectural differences have direct implications for power, memory, and expansion capabilities.

The Xeon E5645 has 6 physical cores with 12 threads, a larger shared L3 cache of 12 MB, and uses triple-channel DDR3 memory. The Core i5-4460T has 4 physical cores with 4 threads (no Hyper-Threading), a smaller shared L3 cache of 6 MB, and uses dual-channel DDR3 memory. The Xeon's transistor count is 1,170 million on a die size of 239 mm², while the Core i5 has 1,400 million transistors on a smaller 177 mm² die, reflecting the newer manufacturing process.

The Xeon E5645 supports ECC memory, a critical feature for server reliability, while the Core i5-4460T lacks ECC support. The Core i5 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4600), whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics capability. PCIe connectivity also differs: the Xeon uses Gen 2, while the Core i5 uses Gen 3 with 16 lanes on the CPU. Both processors use DDR3 memory, but the memory bus width differs (triple-channel vs. dual-channel), and the Core i5 has a specified memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s while the Xeon's bandwidth is not recorded in the database.

Thermal design power shows a stark contrast: the Xeon E5645 has an 80 W TDP, while the Core i5-4460T has a much lower 35 W TDP. Socket compatibility is entirely different: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, and the Core i5 uses Intel Socket 1150. The Xeon's release date is March 2010, while the Core i5's release date is February 2014. Both processors are end-of-life and have locked multipliers.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon E5645 wins in every recorded benchmark comparison. Its advantage is most pronounced in multi-threaded workloads where its 6 cores and 12 threads provide a clear edge over the 4-core, 4-thread Core i5-4460T. The Xeon's larger 12 MB L3 cache also helps in workloads that benefit from more shared cache capacity.

The Core i5-4460T's strengths lie outside the recorded benchmark data. Its integrated graphics capability means it can handle display output without a discrete GPU, which the Xeon cannot do. Its lower 35 W TDP makes it more suitable for compact or passively cooled systems where power consumption is a priority. However, in the Cinebench tests available in the database, the Core i5 does not achieve a single win.

For users prioritizing raw CPU compute in rendering or scientific workloads, the Xeon E5645 is the clear choice based on the data. For scenarios requiring integrated graphics or minimal power draw, the Core i5-4460T has practical advantages, though these are not reflected in the benchmark scores recorded.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification category:

• Cores: Xeon E5645 has 6 cores, Core i5-4460T has 4 cores.
• Threads: Xeon E5645 has 12 threads, Core i5-4460T has 4 threads.
• Base clock: Xeon E5645 runs at 2.40 GHz, Core i5-4460T runs at 1900.00 MHz (which converts to 1.90 GHz).
• Boost clock: Xeon E5645 boosts to 2.67 GHz, Core i5-4460T boosts to 2.70 GHz.
• TDP: Xeon E5645 is rated at 80 W, Core i5-4460T at 35 W.
• Socket: Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, Core i5 uses Intel Socket 1150.
• Architecture: Xeon is Westmere-EP, Core i5 is Haswell.
• Process node: Xeon uses 32 nm, Core i5 uses 22 nm.
• Transistors: Xeon has 1,170 million, Core i5 has 1,400 million.
• Die size: Xeon measures 239 mm², Core i5 measures 177 mm².
• L3 cache: Xeon has 12 MB shared, Core i5 has 6 MB shared.
• Memory bus: Xeon uses triple-channel, Core i5 uses dual-channel.
• Memory bandwidth: Core i5 has 25.6 GB/s specified, Xeon bandwidth is not recorded.
• ECC support: Xeon supports ECC, Core i5 does not.
• PCIe generation: Xeon uses Gen 2, Core i5 uses Gen 3 (16 lanes).
• Integrated graphics: Xeon has none, Core i5 has Intel HD 4600.
• Market segment: Xeon is Server/Workstation, Core i5 is Desktop.
• Release date: Xeon launched March 2010, Core i5 launched February 2014.
• Part numbers: Xeon is SLBWZ, Core i5 is SR1S7.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data covers five Cinebench tests, and the Xeon E5645 wins all five by a consistent margin between 34.5% and 35.5%.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 421 against the Core i5's 313, a 34.5% advantage. This test reflects the Xeon's 12-thread capability, which nearly doubles the Core i5's thread count. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the Xeon scores 1758 versus 1305, improving the delta slightly to 34.7%. The R23 multi-core test shows a similar pattern: Xeon at 4187, Core i5 at 3109, again a 34.7% gap.

Single-core results are where a newer architecture might be expected to help the Core i5, but the data shows otherwise. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 248 versus 183 for the Core i5, a 35.5% difference, which is actually the largest delta in the entire comparison. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the Xeon scores 591 versus 438, a 34.9% gap. The Xeon's boost clock is slightly lower (2.67 GHz vs. 2.70 GHz), yet it still outpaces the Core i5 in single-threaded tests, suggesting that the older Westmere architecture's higher base clock and possibly memory subsystem advantages outweigh the Core i5's newer design.

The Core i5-4460T has two additional benchmark scores not shared with the Xeon: Geekbench multi-core at 2170 and single-core at 809. These are not part of the head-to-head comparison since the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench entries in the database.

The average benchmark score for the Xeon is 1211, while the Core i5 averages 1190. The Xeon's nearest rival in the database is the Intel Core i3-7300T at exactly 1211, a 0% delta. The Core i5's nearest rival is the AMD Opteron 6234 at 1191, a -0.1% delta. Both processors sit near the bottom third of all CPUs, with the Xeon at percentile 34 and the Core i5 at percentile 33.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon E5645 is the superior processor in every benchmark comparison recorded in the database. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 34.5% to 35.5%. Its 6-core, 12-thread configuration provides a substantial multi-threading advantage, and it even wins single-core tests despite a slightly lower boost clock. The Xeon also supports ECC memory and triple-channel DDR3, making it suitable for server or workstation environments where data integrity and memory bandwidth are priorities.

The Intel Core i5-4460T, while losing all shared benchmarks, offers distinct advantages in other areas. Its 35 W TDP makes it far more power-efficient than the Xeon's 80 W. It includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon completely lacks, allowing for a simpler system build without a discrete GPU. Its newer 22 nm process node and higher transistor count on a smaller die suggest better power efficiency per transistor. For a basic desktop system where power draw and integrated graphics matter more than raw rendering performance, the Core i5-4460T could be the practical choice.

However, based strictly on the performance data, the Xeon E5645 is the clear winner. Users who need maximum multi-core performance for rendering, compilation, or scientific workloads should choose the Xeon. Users who need integrated graphics, lower power consumption, and are willing to accept significantly lower multi-core scores should consider the Core i5-4460T. The Xeon's wins are consistent and substantial, and the Core i5 has no benchmark victory to point to in this comparison.