Intel Core i7-3520M vs Intel Xeon W3520 Comparison

The Verdict

The recorded data presents a narrow but consistent advantage for the Intel Xeon W3520 across every shared benchmark. In the five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the Xeon W3520 wins all five, with margins ranging from 3.2% to 3.5%. The Xeon W3520 reaches 252 points in Cinebench R15 multicore versus 244 for the Core i7-3520M, a 3.3% lead. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Xeon scores 1052 against 1018, again a 3.3% lead. The largest single margin is in Cinebench R20 singlecore, where the Xeon posts 148 versus 143, a 3.5% advantage.

Despite the Xeon's wins, the average benchmark scores from the database place the two nearly level: the Xeon W3520 averages 862, while the Core i7-3520M averages 843. Both processors sit at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs tracked. The Xeon's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-3470T, scores 863 (0.1% higher), while the Core i7-3520M's closest competitor, the AMD FX-8800P, matches its 843 average. The Xeon W3520 is effectively tied with the Core i5-3470T and the AMD A8-7650K (860, 0.2% lower), and it sits 0.5% below the Intel Xeon X3460 (866). The Core i7-3520M is 0.3% above the Intel Core i7-920 (840) and 0.4% above the Intel Xeon X5470 (839).

Who should pick which? The data favors the Xeon W3520 for tasks that rely on sustained multicore throughput, as it wins every Cinebench multithreaded test. The Core i7-3520M, however, is the only one of the two with integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), and its 35 W TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient than the Xeon's 130 W TDP. For mobile or low-power deployments, the Core i7-3520M is the only sensible choice, given its BGA 1023 socket and mobile market segment. For a fixed, socketed workstation or server platform, the Xeon W3520's slight performance edge and ECC memory support make it the more appropriate part.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multicore workloads?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 wins all three multicore Cinebench tests: R15 (252 vs 244), R20 (1052 vs 1018), and R23 (2505 vs 2426), each with a 3.3% margin.

Q: Does the Core i7-3520M win any benchmark?

A: No. In the five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, the Core i7-3520M records zero wins. The Xeon W3520 takes all five.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon W3520 averages 862, and the Core i7-3520M averages 843. Both are at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Xeon W3520 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-3520M does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the power and socket differences?

A: The Xeon W3520 uses a 130 W TDP and fits Intel Socket 1366. The Core i7-3520M uses a 35 W TDP and fits Intel BGA 1023.

Q: Is there any integrated graphics on either chip?

A: The Core i7-3520M includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Xeon W3520 has no integrated graphics listed.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different architectural generations. The Xeon W3520 uses the Nehalem architecture, with the codename Bloomfield, built on a 45 nm process at Intel. The Core i7-3520M uses the Ivy Bridge architecture, codename Ivy Bridge, built on a 22 nm process. The Xeon W3520 integrates 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, while the Core i7-3520M has no listed transistor count but a die size of 118 mm².

Core and cache configurations differ substantially. The Xeon W3520 has 4 cores and 8 threads, with 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. The Core i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads, with the same 64 KB L1 per core and 256 KB L2 per core, but only 4 MB of shared L3. The Xeon thus has double the physical cores and double the L3 capacity.

Memory architecture also diverges. The Xeon W3520 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus. The Core i7-3520M uses a dual-channel memory bus, with no specific memory support type listed. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the Core i7. The Xeon also lists PCIe Gen 2 support, while the Core i7 has no PCIe generation listed.

The Xeon W3520 comes from a server/workstation market segment, is marked end-of-life, and has a part number SLBEW. The Core i7-3520M comes from the mobile segment, has no production status listed, and its part number is SR0MU. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in several core specification fields. The Xeon W3520 has 4 cores and 8 threads; the Core i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.67 GHz for the Xeon versus 2.90 GHz for the Core i7. Boost clocks are 2.93 GHz for the Xeon versus 3.60 GHz for the Core i7. The Core i7 has a higher clock speed in both modes.

TDP is a major divider: the Xeon W3520 draws 130 W, while the Core i7-3520M draws 35 W. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 1366, the Core i7 uses Intel BGA 1023. Process node differs: 45 nm for the Xeon, 22 nm for the Core i7. Die size is 263 mm² for the Xeon and 118 mm² for the Core i7. Transistor count is listed only for the Xeon at 731 million.

Cache sizes differ in L3: the Xeon has 8 MB shared, the Core i7 has 4 MB shared. L1 and L2 are the same per-core values (64 KB and 256 KB per core). Memory bus width differs: triple-channel for the Xeon, dual-channel for the Core i7. ECC support exists only on the Xeon. Integrated graphics is present only on the Core i7 (Intel HD 4000). The Xeon lists PCIe Gen 2 support; the Core i7 does not list PCIe support.

Market segments differ: server/workstation for the Xeon, mobile for the Core i7. Release dates differ: the Xeon launched on 2009-03-29, the Core i7 on 2012-06-02. Neither has a launch MSRP in the database. Part numbers are SLBEW for the Xeon and SR0MU for the Core i7. Both are multiplier-unlocked.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark set covers five Cinebench tests, and the Xeon W3520 wins all of them. The smallest margin is 3.2% in Cinebench R23 singlecore, where the Xeon scores 353 against 342. The largest margin is 3.5% in Cinebench R20 singlecore, with the Xeon at 148 and the Core i7 at 143.

In multicore tests, the Xeon's advantage is consistent at 3.3% across all three versions. Cinebench R15 multicore shows 252 versus 244. Cinebench R20 multicore shows 1052 versus 1018. Cinebench R23 multicore shows 2505 versus 2426. The consistency of the 3.3% margin across different Cinebench versions suggests a stable performance gap that scales with workload.

Singlecore margins are slightly higher in percentage terms: 3.5% in R20 and 3.2% in R23. This is notable because the Core i7-3520M has a higher base clock (2.90 GHz vs 2.67 GHz) and a much higher boost clock (3.60 GHz vs 2.93 GHz). Despite the clock disadvantage, the Xeon W3520 still leads in single-threaded Cinebench, indicating that architectural efficiency and per-core throughput favor the older Nehalem design in these specific tests.

The Core i7-3520M does have additional Geekbench scores in the database: 1156 multicore and 570 singlecore. The Xeon W3520 has no Geekbench scores for those tests. The Xeon's average benchmark score of 862 is 19 points higher than the Core i7's 843, a 2.3% difference in average performance. The Xeon's nearest rivals all sit within a 0.5% band (the Xeon X3460 at 866, the Core i5-3470T at 863, the AMD A8-7650K at 860, and the Core i7-4500U at 859), so the Xeon is essentially bracketed by those parts. The Core i7-3520M's rivals are similarly close: the AMD FX-8800P at 843 (0.1% higher), the Core i7-920 at 840 (0.3% lower), the Xeon X5470 at 839 (0.4% lower), and the Core i5-3380M at 838 (0.6% lower).

Overall, the benchmark data shows the Xeon W3520 ahead in every direct comparison, but by a narrow margin. The Core i7-3520M's lower power envelope and integrated graphics do not translate into higher Cinebench scores, yet the Xeon's wins are all below 4%, meaning neither part dominates the other by a large degree. In the database's percentile ranking, both CPUs sit at the same 23rd percentile, confirming that they are comparable overall performers despite their architectural and generational differences.