Intel Core i5-5200U vs Intel Xeon X3440 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a remarkably one-sided picture in this comparison. Across every single test recorded in the database, the Intel Xeon X3440 takes the win, with the Core i5-5200U trailing by a consistent margin of roughly 10% in each workload.

Starting with multi-core performance, the Xeon X3440 posts 238 points in Cinebench R15 multi-core against 214 for the i5-5200U, a delta of -10.1%. The pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon scores 994 versus 892, again a 10.3% deficit for the mobile chip. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the Xeon reaches 2368 while the i5-5200U manages 2125, another 10.3% gap. These are not marginal differences; they represent a clear, repeatable advantage for the older server part in every threaded workload recorded.

Single-core performance tells the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon X3440 scores 140 against 126 for the i5-5200U, a 10% lead. Cinebench R23 single-core shows 334 versus 300, a 10.2% advantage. Even the Geekbench results, though not part of the head-to-head table, align: the i5-5200U records 1464 multi-core and 742 single-core, placing it in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon X3440 also sits in the 22nd percentile, but its average benchmark score of 815 trails slightly behind the i5-5200U's 838 average. This apparent contradiction is worth noting: the head-to-head tests all favor the Xeon, yet the aggregate average across the full benchmark suite slightly favors the i5-5200U, likely due to different test weighting in the database's overall scoring.

The closest rival context helps frame these results. The i5-5200U's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3380M at a perfect 0% delta (identical average score of 838), the Intel Xeon X3450 at +0.1%, and the Intel Xeon X5470 at -0.2%. Meanwhile, the Xeon X3440's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-L16G7 at -0.1%, the Intel Core 2 Extreme QX9775 at +0.2%, and the Intel Core i7-5550U at +0.2%. Both processors occupy similar mid-range territory in the database's overall rankings, but the Xeon consistently outperforms the i5 in every direct comparison test.

The wins tally confirms the dominance: the Xeon X3440 wins 5 out of 5 head-to-head benchmarks, with zero wins for the i5-5200U. No test in the recorded data shows the mobile chip pulling ahead, not even in single-threaded scenarios where its newer architecture might be expected to help.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon X3440 wins all three multi-core tests recorded: Cinebench R15 (238 vs 214), R20 (994 vs 892), and R23 (2368 vs 2125). The margin is consistently around 10.1% to 10.3% in favor of the Xeon.

Q: Does the Core i5-5200U win any benchmark?

A: No. The head-to-head data shows the Xeon X3440 winning all 5 recorded comparisons. The i5-5200U's average benchmark score of 838 is higher than the Xeon's 815, but this aggregate includes tests beyond the head-to-head set and does not translate to a win in any direct comparison.

Q: How do these processors compare in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon X3440 leads in both single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 140 versus 126 for the i5-5200U (10% faster). In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 334 versus 300 (10.2% faster).

Q: What is the percentile ranking for each processor?

A: Both the Intel Core i5-5200U and the Intel Xeon X3440 are recorded at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs in the database. Despite the Xeon's consistent head-to-head wins, neither processor stands out as exceptional in the broader landscape.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Core i5-5200U has an average benchmark score of 838, while the Xeon X3440 has 815. This is a 2.8% difference in favor of the i5-5200U, even though the Xeon wins every direct comparison test.

Q: Are both processors still in production?

A: No. Both are listed as end-of-life in the database. The i5-5200U was released on 2015-02-28, while the Xeon X3440 came out on 2009-09-07.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous for raw performance: the Intel Xeon X3440 is the faster processor in every recorded benchmark. Its 10% lead across both single-core and multi-core tests, from Cinebench R15 through R23, makes it the clear choice for anyone prioritizing compute throughput. The Xeon's 4 cores and 8 threads give it a structural advantage that the i5-5200U's 2 cores and 4 threads cannot overcome, even with the i5's newer Broadwell architecture.

However, the choice is not purely about benchmark scores. The i5-5200U carries a 15W TDP versus the Xeon's 95W, making it dramatically more power-efficient for mobile or compact systems. Its integrated Intel HD 5500 graphics provide display output without a discrete GPU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. The i5-5200U also supports a higher memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s against the Xeon's 21.3 GB/s, and it fits in the compact Intel BGA 1168 socket, whereas the Xeon requires a Socket 1156 motherboard.

The Xeon X3440 counters with ECC memory support, a feature absent on the i5-5200U, and double the L3 cache at 8 MB shared versus 3 MB shared. Its PCIe implementation also offers more lanes: 16 versus 12, both Gen 2.

For a workstation or server workload where ECC memory and raw multi-threaded performance matter, the Xeon X3440 is the data-backed pick. For a mobile or low-power build where efficiency and integrated graphics are essential, the i5-5200U is the only viable option despite its slower benchmark results. The launch MSRP for the i5-5200U was $281, while the Xeon X3440 launched at $215.

Specification Differences

The most striking specification gap is core count: the Xeon X3440 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the i5-5200U has 2 cores and 4 threads. Clock speeds also favor the Xeon, with a base of 2.53 GHz and boost of 2.93 GHz, compared to the i5's 2.20 GHz base and 2.70 GHz boost.

Power consumption differs enormously: the Xeon X3440 is rated at 95W TDP, while the i5-5200U sips just 15W. Sockets are incompatible: the Xeon uses Intel Socket 1156, the i5-5200U uses Intel BGA 1168.

Memory bandwidth favors the i5-5200U at 25.6 GB/s versus 21.3 GB/s for the Xeon, though both support dual-channel DDR3. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe configurations differ as well: the Xeon offers Gen 2 with 16 lanes, the i5-5200U offers Gen 2 with 12 lanes.

Integrated graphics are present only on the i5-5200U (Intel HD 5500); the Xeon has none. The Xeon's launch MSRP was $215, the i5-5200U's was $281. Production status is end-of-life for both, with the i5-5200U released five and a half years after the Xeon.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide here spans two Intel microarchitectures and two process nodes. The i5-5200U is built on Broadwell-U, a 14 nm process with 1,300 million transistors on an 82 mm² die. The Xeon X3440 uses Nehalem (Lynnfield), a 45 nm process with 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The newer process gives the i5-5200U a massive transistor density advantage, but the Xeon's larger die area and higher core count deliver more raw compute.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both have 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, but the shared L3 cache is 3 MB on the i5-5200U versus 8 MB on the Xeon. That 5 MB difference is significant for workloads that benefit from large cached working sets.

The Xeon X3440 is a Lynnfield part, part of the Nehalem generation, designed for server and workstation use. The i5-5200U is a Broadwell-U mobile chip, part of the Core i5 generation, optimized for power efficiency. The Xeon's market segment is Server/Workstation; the i5-5200U's is Mobile.

Both processors are multiplier-locked, neither offers unlocked overclocking. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the i5-5200U does not. The part numbers are SR23Y for the i5-5200U and SLBLF for the Xeon X3440.

In terms of node advantage, the 14 nm Broadwell process is three generations ahead of 45 nm Nehalem, which explains the i5-5200U's ability to deliver competitive single-thread performance at a fraction of the power. Yet the benchmark data shows the Xeon still edges ahead even in single-threaded tests, suggesting that the older architecture's higher clock speeds (2.93 GHz boost versus 2.70 GHz) and larger cache compensate for the process disadvantage. The Xeon's 8 MB L3 cache likely plays a role in its consistent 10% lead across all recorded workloads.