Intel Core i5-5350U vs Intel Xeon W3540 Comparison

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon W3540 wins all recorded multi-core Cinebench tests. It scores 267 vs 221 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, 1113 vs 923 in R20 multi-core, and 2652 vs 2198 in R23 multi-core. That is roughly a 20.6% to 20.8% advantage across the board.

Q: Does the Core i5-5350U win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head results, the Xeon W3540 wins all five recorded Cinebench tests. The i5-5350U does have additional Geekbench results in the database (1671 multi-core, 868 single-core), but the Xeon has no corresponding Geekbench entry, so no direct comparison is possible there.

Q: How do these CPUs compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: Both sit at the 24th percentile of all CPUs. The Xeon W3540 has an average benchmark score of 913, nearly identical to the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U (917, delta -0.5%) and the Intel Pentium Gold G6405T (915, delta -0.2%). The i5-5350U averages 903, matching the Intel Core i7-940 (903, delta 0%) and trailing the Intel Core i3-4330T (908, delta -0.6%).

Q: What are the core and thread counts?

A: The Xeon W3540 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i5-5350U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon also carries 8 MB of shared L3 cache versus 3 MB on the i5, and its base clock of 2.93 GHz is well above the i5's 1.80 GHz base.

Q: Which chip is more power-efficient?

A: The i5-5350U has a 15 W TDP, while the Xeon W3540 is rated at 130 W. The mobile chip is built on a 14 nm process with 1,900 million transistors in a 133 mm² die, whereas the Xeon uses 45 nm, 731 million transistors, and a 263 mm² die. The efficiency gap is substantial, but the Xeon delivers higher raw performance.

Q: Can the i5-5350U support ECC memory?

A: No. ECC memory support is listed as true for the Xeon W3540, while the i5-5350U does not support it. The Xeon also uses a triple-channel memory bus, while the i5 uses dual-channel. The i5 does list a specific memory bandwidth figure of 29.9 GB/s, which the Xeon entry does not include.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon W3540 and the Intel Core i5-5350U come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Xeon is a Nehalem-generation part, codenamed Bloomfield, targeting server and workstation workloads. It is built on Intel's 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The i5-5350U is a Broadwell-generation mobile chip, codenamed Broadwell-U, fabricated on a far more advanced 14 nm process with 1,900 million transistors packed into a 133 mm² die. The node difference is significant: the Xeon uses roughly 2.8 times the die area but only about 38% of the transistor count.

The core configurations diverge sharply. The Xeon W3540 has 4 physical cores with Hyper-Threading, yielding 8 threads, while the i5-5350U has 2 physical cores with Hyper-Threading, yielding 4 threads. The Xeon's base clock is 2.93 GHz with a boost of 3.20 GHz; the i5's base clock is 1.80 GHz with a boost of 2.90 GHz. Although the i5's boost clock gets closer, the Xeon maintains a higher base frequency by a wide margin.

Cache hierarchies reflect the performance-focused nature of the Xeon. Both chips have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core, but L3 differs: the Xeon has 8 MB shared, while the i5 has only 3 MB shared. The Xeon's larger shared cache is typical for a workstation part, helping with multi-threaded data reuse.

Memory support also differs. The Xeon uses triple-channel DDR3 and supports ECC memory. The i5 uses dual-channel DDR3, does not support ECC, and has a recorded memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s. Both use PCIe Gen 2, though the i5 entry specifies 12 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon entry just lists Gen 2 without lane details. The i5 includes integrated graphics, an Intel HD 6000 GPU, while the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all.

The market positioning is clear: the Xeon is a server and workstation processor on Intel Socket 1366, while the i5 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1168. The Xeon was released in March 2009, the i5 in February 2015. Both are end-of-life products. The i5 has a launch MSRP of $315, while the Xeon entry has no recorded launch price.

The Verdict

The data points to a simple conclusion for raw compute: the Intel Xeon W3540 is the faster processor in every recorded Cinebench comparison. It leads by approximately 20.6% to 20.8% across single-core and multi-core tests. For anyone running CPU-bound workstation tasks, rendering, or multi-threaded batch work, the Xeon is the stronger choice based strictly on the benchmark results.

However, the i5-5350U is a completely different class of product. It is a 15 W mobile chip with integrated graphics, a 14 nm process, and a 29.9 GB/s memory bandwidth figure. The Xeon draws 130 W and requires a separate graphics solution. If the workload fits within a low-power mobile platform, the i5 is the only one of the two that can operate in that environment at all. The Xeon cannot be dropped into a BGA 1168 laptop board, and the i5 cannot be installed in a Socket 1366 workstation board.

Who should pick which? A user building or upgrading a legacy Socket 1366 workstation, especially one that benefits from ECC memory and 8 threads, should choose the Xeon W3540. Its 20.8% lead in Cinebench R15 multi-core and similar margins in newer Cinebench versions make it the clear performance winner. A user assembling a compact, low-power system from a Broadwell-U mobile platform, with integrated graphics and no need for ECC, should pick the i5-5350U. The 130 W TDP difference is enormous: the Xeon's power draw is over eight times that of the i5. They are not really competitors; they are answers to different questions.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W3540 | Intel Core i5-5350U |

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

| Cores | 4 | 2 |

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base clock | 2.93 GHz | 1.80 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.90 GHz |

| TDP | 130 W | 15 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel BGA 1168 |

| Architecture | Nehalem | Broadwell |

| Codename | Bloomfield | Broadwell-U |

| Process node | 45 nm | 14 nm |

| Transistors | 731 million | 1,900 million |

| Die size | 263 mm² | 133 mm² |

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

| Memory bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not listed | 29.9 GB/s |

| ECC memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 2, 12 lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated graphics | None | Intel HD 6000 |

| Market segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Release date | 2009-03-29 | 2015-02-28 |

| Launch MSRP | Not listed | $315 |

| Part number | SLBEX | SR268 |

Both chips have 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core. Both support DDR3 memory. Neither has an unlocked multiplier. The Xeon has no recorded launch MSRP; the i5's is $315.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent. The Intel Xeon W3540 wins all five recorded comparisons, and the margin barely moves across different Cinebench versions.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 267 against the i5's 221, a 20.8% lead. That is the same percentage as the R20 single-core result, where the Xeon scores 157 and the i5 scores 130. The R20 multi-core test shows 1113 vs 923, a 20.6% margin. In R23 multi-core, the Xeon scores 2652 vs 2198, a 20.7% lead. Finally, R23 single-core shows 374 vs 310, another 20.6% margin.

The consistency of these deltas is notable. Whether the workload is single-core or multi-core, whether the Cinebench version is older or newer, the Xeon maintains roughly a one-fifth performance advantage. This suggests a balanced architectural edge rather than a workload-specific quirk. The Xeon's higher clocks, extra cores, and larger L3 cache all contribute, but the uniform delta points to a general per-thread efficiency advantage as well.

The i5-5350U does have Geekbench scores in its individual record: 1671 multi-core and 868 single-core. There is no matching Geekbench result for the Xeon, so the database does not permit a direct head-to-head comparison on that test. Those figures simply stand as the i5's own recorded metrics.

It is also worth noting where each chip sits relative to its nearest rivals. The Xeon's average score of 913 places it between the AMD PRO A12-9800E (910, delta 0.3%) and the AMD Athlon Silver 3050U (917, delta -0.5%), with the Intel Pentium Gold G6405T essentially tied at 915 (delta -0.2%). The i5-5350U's average of 903 ties the Intel Core i7-940 exactly (903, delta 0%), sits just above the Intel Core i5-4258U (902, delta 0.1%), and just below the Intel Core i3-4330T (908, delta -0.6%). Both chips land at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are near the lower end of the database's performance distribution, but the Xeon is measurably stronger within that tier.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon W3540 wins every recorded Cinebench comparison, so the performance-oriented use cases all belong to it. Multi-threaded rendering in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 favors the Xeon by roughly 20%. Single-threaded Cinebench tests also favor the Xeon by the same margin, which is somewhat surprising given the i5's newer architecture and higher boost clock. The Xeon's 8 threads and 8 MB of L3 cache make it the better pick for any workload that can use more than four threads, and even for lightly threaded tasks the recorded data shows the Xeon ahead.

The i5-5350U wins the efficiency and platform arguments. Its 15 W TDP is a fraction of the Xeon's 130 W. It has integrated Intel HD 6000 graphics, so a basic system needs no discrete GPU. It is a mobile part on a BGA socket, meaning it belongs in ultrathin laptops and compact all-in-one designs where the Xeon physically cannot go. The i5's 14 nm process and 1,900 million transistors in a 133 mm² die show a much denser, more modern design. It also records a specific memory bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, which the Xeon entry does not provide.

For a builder with a Socket 1366 workstation motherboard, the Xeon W3540 is the obvious pick: more cores, more threads, higher clocks, ECC support, triple-channel memory, and a 20%+ benchmark lead. For a builder working with a BGA 1168 mobile platform, the i5-5350U is the only one of the two that fits, and it brings integrated graphics and dramatically lower power consumption. The data does not show a single scenario where the i5 beats the Xeon in raw Cinebench performance, but the i5 wins on power, integration, and mobility. Choose by platform and power budget, not by hoping the i5 will close the performance gap, because the recorded numbers say it will not.