Intel Core i5-680 vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data records a clean sweep for the Intel Core i5-680 across every test in the comparison suite. The margins are consistent, all landing between 2.3% and 2.7%, which indicates a steady, systemic advantage rather than a workload-specific quirk. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i5-680 scores 226 against 220 for the Xeon X5460, a 2.7% lead. That is the largest relative gap recorded in the head-to-head set, and it matters because the Xeon has twice the physical core count.

The multi-core results tell a similar story across newer benchmark revisions. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the i5-680 posts 942 versus 920, a 2.4% advantage. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the i5-680 reaches 2243 while the Xeon manages 2191, again a 2.4% gap. The persistence of this margin across three generations of the Cinebench suite suggests that the i5-680’s architectural efficiency offsets the Xeon’s core-count advantage in threaded workloads. The Xeon’s four physical cores do not translate into a win over the i5-680’s two cores with Hyper-Threading.

Single-core results follow the same pattern, with slightly smaller margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the i5-680 scores 132 against 129, a 2.3% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the i5-680 scores 316 against 309, also a 2.3% advantage. These are narrow but consistent wins, and they carry weight for legacy software that relies heavily on single-thread performance. The i5-680 wins all five recorded head-to-head comparisons, while the Xeon X5460 records zero wins. The average benchmark score reinforces the hierarchy: the i5-680 sits at 772 with a 21st percentile ranking across all CPUs, while the Xeon X5460 sits at 754 with a 20th percentile ranking.

The nearest rival data places both chips in similar company. The i5-680’s closest competitor is the Intel Core i7-3687U at an average score of 773, only 0.1% ahead. The Intel Celeron G5920 and Intel Core i3-3250T both score 775, 0.4% ahead. The Intel Pentium Silver J5005 scores 776, 0.5% ahead. For the Xeon X5460, the nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-3230M at 754, 0.1% ahead, followed by the Intel Core i5-4250U and Intel Xeon E5450 at 756, 0.2% and 0.3% ahead respectively, and the Intel Core i3-5020U at 757, 0.4% ahead. These tight clusters show that both chips operate in a crowded performance band, but the i5-680 consistently sits at the top of its group.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and different design philosophies. The Intel Core i5-680 is a Westmere-generation part, codenamed Clarkdale, built on a 32 nm process node. It belongs to the Core i5 family and targets the desktop segment. The Intel Xeon X5460 is a Core 2 architecture part, codenamed Harpertown, built on a 45 nm process node. It belongs to the Xeon family and targets the server and workstation segment. The process node difference alone, 32 nm versus 45 nm, explains part of the efficiency gap: the i5-680 packs 382 million transistors into an 81 mm² die, while the Xeon X5460 packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm².

Core and thread counts differ fundamentally. The i5-680 has 2 physical cores and 4 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to present additional logical processors. The Xeon X5460 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, with no Hyper-Threading. Despite having twice the physical core count, the Xeon cannot convert that into a performance win in the recorded benchmarks, which points to the i5-680’s superior per-core throughput and the efficiency of its memory and cache subsystem.

Cache configurations also diverge. 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 X5460 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, but no L3 cache at all. The i5-680’s inclusive L3 design provides a shared pool for both cores, while the Xeon relies entirely on its L2 slices. For workloads that benefit from shared cache, the i5-680 has a structural advantage. The Xeon’s larger aggregate L2 capacity, 6 MB per die across two dies, does not appear to compensate for the absence of L3 in the benchmark results.

Memory support adds another layer of separation. The i5-680 uses DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration with a recorded memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. The Xeon X5460 supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, also in dual-channel mode, but no memory bandwidth figure is recorded in the database. The i5-680 does not support ECC memory, while the Xeon does, reflecting its server-oriented positioning. The i5-680 also includes integrated graphics, Intel HD, while the Xeon has none. The i5-680 uses Intel Socket 1156 and PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 771 and PCIe Gen 2 without a recorded lane count.

Clock speeds tell a nuanced story. The i5-680 has a base clock of 3.60 GHz and a boost clock of 3.87 GHz, while the Xeon X5460 has a base clock of 3.17 GHz and no recorded boost clock. The i5-680’s higher clocks, combined with its newer architecture and smaller process node, explain its consistent benchmark wins. The Xeon’s lower clock speed and older Core 2 design leave it trailing despite its additional cores. Power consumption also differs sharply: the i5-680 has a TDP of 73 watts, while the Xeon X5460 has a TDP of 120 watts. The i5-680 delivers more performance in these tests while drawing substantially less power, a direct consequence of the 32 nm process and Westmere improvements.

Both chips are end-of-life products with locked multipliers, and neither offers overclocking flexibility. The i5-680 was released in April 2010, while the Xeon X5460 was released in November 2007. The i5-680 carries part number SLBTM, and the Xeon X5460 carries SLANPSLBBA. The i5-680’s launch MSRP was $294, while the Xeon X5460’s launch MSRP was $1172, though the database records these figures without any commentary on their current market relevance.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner for general computing and single-thread-sensitive workloads: the Intel Core i5-680. It wins all five head-to-head comparisons, posts a higher average benchmark score at 772 versus 754, and achieves this with a lower TDP of 73 watts against the Xeon’s 120 watts. The i5-680’s 2.7% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core is its largest win, and its 2.3% to 2.4% margins in other tests show a consistent edge. The Xeon X5460’s four physical cores do not overcome the i5-680’s higher clocks, newer architecture, and shared L3 cache.

For users who need ECC memory support, the Xeon X5460 is the only option of the two, as the i5-680 does not support ECC. The Xeon also targets the server and workstation segment, where reliability features and memory error correction matter more than raw benchmark scores. However, within the recorded Cinebench results, the Xeon does not win a single test. Its best showing is a 220 in Cinebench R15 multi-core, still 2.7% behind the i5-680.

The percentile rankings place both chips near the bottom of the current CPU landscape, at 21% and 20% respectively. Neither is a modern performance leader, but the i5-680 holds the edge in every measured dimension except ECC support and physical core count. The i5-680’s integrated graphics also give it an advantage for systems without a discrete GPU, while the Xeon requires external graphics hardware. For a desktop build from this era, the i5-680 is the stronger choice based on the recorded data. For a legacy server or workstation requiring ECC, the Xeon X5460 remains the only sensible pick, but its benchmark performance lags behind.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Core i5-680 wins every multi-core test. It scores 226 versus 220 in Cinebench R15, 942 versus 920 in Cinebench R20, and 2243 versus 2191 in Cinebench R23.

Q: Does the Xeon X5460’s four physical cores give it an advantage?

A: No, the benchmark data does not show an advantage. Despite having 4 physical cores compared to the i5-680’s 2 cores with 4 threads, the Xeon X5460 loses all five head-to-head comparisons.

Q: What is the average benchmark score difference between the two?

A: The i5-680 has an average benchmark score of 772, while the Xeon X5460 has an average score of 754. The i5-680 also ranks at the 21st percentile versus the Xeon’s 20th percentile.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon X5460 supports ECC memory, while the i5-680 does not. This makes the Xeon the only option for workloads requiring error-correcting memory.

Q: How do their power requirements compare?

A: The i5-680 has a TDP of 73 watts, while the Xeon X5460 has a TDP of 120 watts. The i5-680 delivers higher benchmark scores while drawing less power.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: The i5-680 includes Intel HD integrated graphics. The Xeon X5460 has no integrated graphics, so it requires a separate graphics card for display output.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i5-680 wins in every recorded benchmark category, but its strengths are most pronounced in multi-core workloads where the margin reaches 2.7%. It also leads in single-core tests with 2.3% margins, making it the better choice for older applications that depend on single-thread speed. The i5-680’s higher base clock of 3.60 GHz and boost clock of 3.87 GHz, combined with its 4 MB of shared L3 cache, support its benchmark dominance. Its lower TDP of 73 watts makes it more suitable for compact desktop systems with modest cooling, and its integrated graphics remove the need for a discrete GPU in basic builds. The i5-680’s 32 nm process node and Westmere architecture deliver better per-clock performance than the older Core 2 design.

The Intel Xeon X5460 wins in areas that the Cinebench suite does not measure. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for servers and workstations where data integrity is paramount. Its 4 physical cores, without Hyper-Threading, may appeal to software that expects dedicated physical cores rather than logical threads. The Xeon also uses Intel Socket 771, a platform standard for enterprise servers, and its dual-die design with 6 MB of L2 cache per die provides a different cache topology. For a system that must run ECC memory and operate in a server context, the Xeon X5460 is the only viable choice between the two, even though its benchmark scores are lower. The Xeon’s higher TDP of 120 watts and lack of integrated graphics mean it belongs in a workstation chassis with dedicated cooling and a discrete GPU.

For everyday desktop tasks, legacy gaming, or any workload where the recorded Cinebench data is representative, the i5-680 is the clear pick. For enterprise reliability with ECC support, the Xeon X5460 holds the niche. The data does not support the Xeon as a performance alternative, but it does support it as a platform-specific solution.