Intel Core i5-680 vs Intel Xeon E5450 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-680 across all five Cinebench comparisons, though the margins are consistently narrow. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i5-680 scores 226 against the Xeon E5450's 221, a 2.3% advantage. That pattern holds in Cinebench R20 multicore, where the i5-680 posts 942 versus 923 for the Xeon, a 2.1% lead.

Single-core results tell a similar story. The i5-680 edges ahead in Cinebench R20 single-core with 132 points against 130, a 1.5% margin. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-680 scores 316 while the Xeon manages 310, a 1.9% gap. The largest single-core advantage appears in the R23 multicore test, where the i5-680 scores 2243 against 2198, a 2% difference.

What stands out is not the size of the wins but their consistency. The i5-680 wins all five head-to-head matchups, yet the Xeon E5450 never falls more than 2.3% behind. In practical terms, these are near-parity results. The Xeon's four physical cores do not translate into a multicore advantage over the i5-680's two cores with Hyper-Threading, which suggests the i5-680's higher clock speeds compensate for its lower core count.

The average benchmark scores reinforce this picture. The i5-680 holds an average score of 772, placing it in the 21st percentile of all CPUs in the database. The Xeon E5450 averages 756, sitting at the 20th percentile. The i5-680's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-3687U at 773 (0.1% ahead), the Intel Celeron G5920 at 775 (0.4% ahead), and the Intel Core i3-3250T at 775 (0.4% ahead). The Xeon's closest comparables are the Intel Core i5-4250U at 756 (exact match), the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757 (0.2% ahead), and the Intel Core i5-3230M at 754 (0.2% behind).

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core workloads?

A: The Intel Core i5-680 wins all three multicore tests in the database. It leads by 2.3% in Cinebench R15 multicore (226 vs 221), by 2.1% in Cinebench R20 multicore (942 vs 923), and by 2% in Cinebench R23 multicore (2243 vs 2198).

Q: How do the two compare in single-core performance?

A: The i5-680 also wins both single-core tests. It scores 132 against 130 in Cinebench R20 single-core (a 1.5% lead) and 316 against 310 in Cinebench R23 single-core (a 1.9% lead).

Q: Does the Xeon E5450's four-core design give it an advantage?

A: No. Despite having four physical cores versus the i5-680's two cores, the Xeon E5450 trails in every multicore benchmark. The i5-680's higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 3.87 GHz appear to offset the core count difference, as the Xeon has no boost clock and runs at a fixed 3.00 GHz.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i5-680 has an average benchmark score of 772, while the Intel Xeon E5450 averages 756. This places the i5-680 at the 21st percentile of all CPUs and the Xeon at the 20th percentile.

Q: Are these processors still in production?

A: Both are end-of-life products. The i5-680 was released in April 2010, while the Xeon E5450 came out in November 2007.

Q: Do the two processors support ECC memory?

A: The Xeon E5450 supports ECC memory, while the i5-680 does not. This reflects their different market segments: the Xeon is a server/workstation part, whereas the i5-680 is a desktop processor.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-680 wins in every measured benchmark, so the use-case split is driven by the margin of its victories rather than by any reversal. For single-threaded tasks, the i5-680's advantage is consistent but modest. Its boost clock reaches 3.87 GHz, and it delivers 1.5% to 1.9% higher scores in single-core Cinebench tests. That makes it the slightly better choice for applications that rely on one or two threads, such as older games or lightly threaded productivity tools.

For multi-threaded workloads, the i5-680 again holds the edge, with leads of 2% to 2.3% across the three multicore tests. The surprise here is that the Xeon's four physical cores do not overcome the i5-680's clock speed advantage. However, the Xeon E5450 remains a viable option in scenarios where its server-oriented feature set matters. It supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i5-680, which can be critical for workstations handling data integrity-sensitive tasks. It also uses the Intel Socket 771 platform, which targets server and workstation deployments. The Xeon's memory support depends on the motherboard, accommodating DDR2 or DDR3, whereas the i5-680 is limited to DDR3.

For a desktop builder prioritizing raw Cinebench scores, the i5-680 is the winner across the board. For a user with an existing Socket 771 motherboard who needs ECC memory support, the Xeon E5450 offers comparable performance with a server-grade feature set. The performance gap is small enough that platform compatibility and memory requirements may outweigh the benchmark differences.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every core specification. The i5-680 has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon E5450 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks differ substantially: the i5-680 runs at 3.60 GHz with a boost clock of 3.87 GHz, while the Xeon is locked at 3.00 GHz with no boost capability. Thermal design power also differs, with the i5-680 rated at 73 watts and the Xeon at 80 watts.

The sockets are incompatible. The i5-680 uses Intel Socket 1156, while the Xeon E5450 uses Intel Socket 771. Memory support diverges as well: the i5-680 supports DDR3 with a dual-channel bus and a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while the Xeon supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, also with a dual-channel bus, though no bandwidth figure is recorded. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the i5-680.

PCIe support differs slightly: the i5-680 lists Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Xeon lists simply Gen 2. The i5-680 includes integrated Intel HD graphics, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics. Market segments also differ: the i5-680 is a desktop part, and the Xeon is a server/workstation part. Their launch MSRPs reflect that positioning: the i5-680 launched at $294, while the Xeon launched at $915. Both are end-of-life and have locked multipliers.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors spans several generations. The i5-680 is built on the Westmere architecture, specifically the Clarkdale codename, and belongs to the Core i5 (Clarkdale) generation. The Xeon E5450 uses the older Core 2 architecture with the Harpertown codename, part of the Xeon (Harpertown) generation.

Manufacturing processes differ significantly. The i5-680 uses a 32 nm process, while the Xeon E5450 uses a 45 nm process. Transistor counts reflect this: the i5-680 contains 382 million transistors on an 81 mm² die, whereas the Xeon packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die design of 2x 107 mm². The Xeon's larger transistor count and die area stem from its four physical cores and per-die L2 cache arrangement.

Cache layouts differ as well. The i5-680 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon E5450 also has 64 KB of L1 cache per core but offers 6 MB of L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache listed. This means the i5-680 relies on a shared L3 pool, while the Xeon distributes its cache across two dies.

The Xeon's ECC memory support and server-oriented design point to its enterprise heritage, while the i5-680's integrated graphics and desktop socket target mainstream consumers. The i5-680 also supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 CPU-only lanes, while the Xeon lists PCIe Gen 2 without lane specifics. The Xeon's release date of November 2007 predates the i5-680's April 2010 launch by roughly two and a half years, yet the benchmark data shows the newer dual-core part consistently outperforming the older quad-core Xeon across all tested workloads.