Intel Core i5-5200U vs Intel Xeon E5540 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data presents a clear picture: the Intel Xeon E5540 wins every recorded comparison, and it does so with remarkable consistency. Across all five shared tests, the Xeon holds a lead that hovers tightly between 10.6% and 10.9% over the Core i5-5200U. There is no single test where the mobile chip manages to close the gap or flip the result.

The most decisive margin appears in the multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon E5540 scores 240 against the i5-5200U's 214, a 10.8% advantage. The story repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 1001 versus 892, again a 10.9% lead. Cinebench R23 multi-core follows the same pattern: 2384 for the Xeon against 2125 for the i5, another 10.9% difference. These three multi-core results show that the Xeon's extra physical cores and threads translate into a consistent, repeatable performance edge, not a marginal one.

Single-core results tell a similar tale, though the margins are slightly smaller. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 141 against 126, a 10.6% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 336 versus 300, a 10.7% edge. Even in a workload that favors lower-latency, higher-frequency designs, the older Xeon still outpaces the newer mobile part. This is notable because the i5-5200U has a more modern architecture and a smaller manufacturing node, yet it cannot overcome the Xeon's higher base clock and boost clock in single-threaded tasks.

The aggregate benchmark averages reinforce the same hierarchy. The i5-5200U has an average benchmark score of 838, while the Xeon E5540 sits at 820. However, this average is skewed by the fact that the i5 has additional Geekbench results that are not present for the Xeon. When isolating the shared Cinebench tests, the Xeon is ahead in every case. The percentile rankings place both processors at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they occupy similar overall performance tiers despite the Xeon's head-to-head wins.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon E5540 wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests. Its lead is 10.8% in R15 (240 vs 214), 10.9% in R20 (1001 vs 892), and 10.9% in R23 (2384 vs 2125).

Q: Is the Core i5-5200U faster in single-core tests?

A: No. The Xeon E5540 also wins single-core tests. It leads by 10.6% in Cinebench R20 single-core (141 vs 126) and by 10.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (336 vs 300).

Q: How do these processors compare in overall benchmark averages?

A: The Core i5-5200U has a higher average benchmark score at 838, compared to 820 for the Xeon E5540. However, the i5's average includes additional Geekbench results, while the Xeon's average is derived only from Cinebench tests. Both sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs.

Q: Do the two CPUs use the same memory technology?

A: Both support DDR3 memory and share the same memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. However, the i5-5200U uses dual-channel memory, while the Xeon E5540 uses triple-channel memory.

Q: Does either processor support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5540 supports ECC memory. The Core i5-5200U does not have ECC support.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The Core i5-5200U includes Intel HD 5500 integrated graphics. The Xeon E5540 has no integrated graphics, which is typical for a server or workstation part.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5540 is the clear winner across all benchmark categories recorded in the database. It wins every Cinebench test, both single-core and multi-core, and its margins are remarkably consistent, ranging from 10.6% to 10.9%. This makes it the stronger choice for any workload that relies on CPU compute power, whether that is rendering, simulation, or other multi-threaded tasks. The Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads give it a structural advantage over the i5's 2 cores and 4 threads, and its higher base clock of 2.53 GHz and boost clock of 2.80 GHz help it maintain the lead even in single-threaded tests.

The Core i5-5200U, despite its more modern Broadwell architecture and 14 nm process node, does not win any recorded benchmark. Its only statistical advantage appears in the average benchmark score, where its inclusion of Geekbench results pushes its average to 838 versus the Xeon's 820. For users who prioritize the i5's integrated graphics, lower power consumption, or mobile form factor, those are the areas where the chip makes sense, but not on raw compute performance. The i5 is also the only one of the two with a 15 W TDP, making it suitable for thin-and-light laptops, whereas the Xeon's 80 W TDP requires a more substantial cooling solution.

If the use case is purely about CPU throughput, the Xeon E5540 wins outright. If the use case involves a system where the CPU must share a chassis with integrated graphics and minimal power draw, the i5-5200U has the practical edge, but its benchmark results show it is consistently slower in processing power.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The i5-5200U has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E5540 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Xeon also runs at higher clocks: its base clock is 2.53 GHz versus 2.20 GHz for the i5, and its boost clock is 2.80 GHz versus 2.70 GHz. These clock advantages, combined with double the cores, explain why the Xeon wins every benchmark.

The cache hierarchy also differs. Both share the same per-core L1 and L2 cache sizes (64 KB per core and 256 KB per core, respectively), but the L3 cache is very different: the i5 has 3 MB shared, while the Xeon has 8 MB shared. This larger L3 cache gives the Xeon more room to hold working sets, which helps in multi-threaded and data-intensive workloads.

Memory support shows a split. Both use DDR3 and achieve 25.6 GB/s peak bandwidth, but the i5 uses dual-channel memory while the Xeon uses triple-channel. The Xeon also adds ECC memory support, which the i5 lacks. PCIe connectivity also differs: the i5 offers Gen 2 with 12 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon lists Gen 2 without a lane count.

The sockets are incompatible. The i5 uses Intel BGA 1168, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366. This means they cannot be swapped into the same motherboard. The i5 is a mobile part with integrated Intel HD 5500 graphics, while the Xeon is a server/workstation part with no integrated graphics. Their market segments reflect this: Mobile for the i5, Server/Workstation for the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, reflecting the years between their releases and their different design goals. The i5-5200U is built on Broadwell architecture with a 14 nm process node, while the Xeon E5540 uses Nehalem architecture on a 45 nm node. This process difference is stark: 14 nm versus 45 nm means the i5 packs transistors far more densely. The i5 has 1,300 million transistors on an 82 mm² die, while the Xeon has 731 million transistors on a much larger 263 mm² die.

The codenames also differ: Broadwell-U for the i5, Gainestown for the Xeon. The Xeon's generation is listed as Xeon (Gainestown), while the i5 is part of the Core i5 (Broadwell-U) generation. These are not just cosmetic differences; they indicate fundamentally different design philosophies. The i5 is engineered for low power consumption in mobile devices, with a 15 W TDP, while the Xeon is built for sustained server and workstation loads, with an 80 W TDP.

Both are manufactured by Intel and use Intel's foundry, but the microarchitecture is generations apart. Nehalem introduced many features that were refined in later architectures, but Broadwell brings improvements in instruction efficiency, power management, and integrated graphics. The i5's integrated HD 5500 graphics is a major architectural addition that the Xeon simply does not have, since server parts typically rely on discrete graphics or no graphics at all.

The production status for both is end-of-life, meaning neither is currently manufactured. The release dates confirm the age gap: the Xeon launched in March 2009, while the i5 launched in February 2015, a six-year span. This explains why the i5 has a smaller, more efficient process node and integrated graphics, while the Xeon relies on raw core count and clock speed. The architectural differences are the underlying reason for the benchmark results: the Xeon wins on sheer compute resources, while the i5 wins on efficiency and integration, but not on raw performance in the recorded tests.