Intel Core i7-3520M vs Intel Xeon X3460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark comparison between the Intel Core i7-3520M and the Intel Xeon X3460 shows a consistent, though modest, advantage for the Xeon part in every recorded test. The database records five head-to-head measurements, all of which result in a win for the Intel Xeon X3460. The Core i7-3520M does not secure a single victory in any of the compared workloads.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon X3460 scores 253 against the Core i7-3520M's 244, a delta of -3.6% from the perspective of the mobile chip. The margin is nearly identical in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 1057 versus 1018, a difference of -3.7%. The pattern holds in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with the Xeon at 2518 and the Core i7-3520M at 2426, again a -3.7% gap. These results indicate that the Xeon's advantage in multi-threaded rendering is stable across different versions of the Cinebench test, with the delta remaining between roughly 3.5% and 4% in every case.

Single-core results tell the same story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon X3460 scores 149 while the Core i7-3520M scores 143, a -4% difference. Cinebench R23 single-core shows the Xeon at 355 and the Core i7-3520M at 342, a -3.7% delta. This is notable because the Core i7-3520M has a higher base clock (2.90 GHz versus 2.80 GHz) and a higher boost clock (3.60 GHz versus 3.47 GHz), yet it still trails the Xeon in single-threaded performance in these tests. The data suggests that the older Nehalem architecture, despite its larger 45 nm process node, retains enough per-core efficiency to edge out the Ivy Bridge mobile part in this specific workload.

The overall averages reinforce this picture. The Core i7-3520M has an average benchmark score of 843, while the Xeon X3460 averages 866. The Xeon sits slightly higher in the database's ranking, with a delta of roughly 2.7% in its favor on average. Both processors occupy the 23rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, meaning they land in the same performance tier overall, but the Xeon is consistently ahead within that tier.

Looking at the nearest rivals helps contextualize each chip. The Core i7-3520M's average score of 843 is nearly identical to the AMD FX-8800P's 843, with a delta of 0.1%. It is also close to the Intel Core i7-920 at 840 (0.3% delta) and the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839 (0.4% delta). The Xeon X3460's average of 866 sits just below the Intel Core i7-3540M at 867 (-0.1% delta) and slightly above the Intel Core i5-3470T at 863 (0.3% delta). These nearest-rival comparisons show that the Xeon X3460 is competing with a slightly faster set of chips than the Core i7-3520M, which aligns with its higher average score.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon X3460 outperforms the Intel Core i7-3520M in every benchmark recorded in the database. The margins range from -3.6% to -4% across the five head-to-head tests, so the Xeon's advantage is consistent but not overwhelming. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the Xeon X3460 is the better performer.

However, the two chips are not direct substitutes in a practical sense. The Core i7-3520M is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP, designed for laptops and portable systems, while the Xeon X3460 is a server or workstation part with a 95 W TDP, intended for desktop-scale Socket 1156 platforms. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which the Core i7-3520M does not, and it has double the core count (4 versus 2) and double the shared L3 cache (8 MB versus 4 MB). Yet the benchmark scores show that the Xeon's extra cores do not translate into a proportional performance advantage, at least not in these Cinebench tests. The Core i7-3520M's higher clock speeds and newer Ivy Bridge architecture keep it close, trailing by less than 4% in every test despite having half the cores and threads.

For a user who already has a Socket 1156 platform and needs a capable server or workstation CPU, the Xeon X3460 is the stronger choice based on the recorded data. For a mobile user who needs a low-power processor with integrated graphics, the Core i7-3520M is the only viable option between the two, since the Xeon has no integrated graphics and a much higher TDP. The benchmark data does not show a scenario where the Core i7-3520M wins, but the practical context of the two platforms matters more than the raw scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins in multi-core performance?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 wins in all three multi-core tests. It scores 253 in Cinebench R15, 1057 in Cinebench R20, and 2518 in Cinebench R23, versus the Core i7-3520M's 244, 1018, and 2426 respectively.

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

A: No. The database records five head-to-head benchmarks, and the Intel Xeon X3460 wins all five. The Core i7-3520M has zero wins in this comparison.

Q: How close are the two processors in single-core performance?

A: The Xeon X3460 leads by -4% in Cinebench R20 single-core (149 versus 143) and by -3.7% in Cinebench R23 single-core (355 versus 342). The margins are slightly larger than the multi-core gaps.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 has 4 cores and 8 threads. The Intel Core i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads.

Q: Does the Core i7-3520M support ECC memory?

A: No, the Core i7-3520M does not support ECC memory. The Intel Xeon X3460 does support ECC memory.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each processor?

A: The Intel Core i7-3520M has an average benchmark score of 843. The Intel Xeon X3460 has an average benchmark score of 866.

Q: Are both processors in the same performance percentile?

A: Yes, both are in the 23rd percentile among all CPUs in the database, even though the Xeon X3460 has a higher average score.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The Intel Core i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Xeon X3460 has 4 cores and 8 threads. Base clocks are close, with the Core i7-3520M at 2.90 GHz and the Xeon X3460 at 2.80 GHz, but the boost clocks differ more noticeably: 3.60 GHz for the Core i7-3520M versus 3.47 GHz for the Xeon X3460.

The TDP gap is substantial. The Core i7-3520M draws 35 W, while the Xeon X3460 draws 95 W. The sockets are entirely different: the Core i7-3520M uses Intel BGA 1023, and the Xeon X3460 uses Intel Socket 1156. The process nodes also differ, with the Core i7-3520M built on a 22 nm node and the Xeon X3460 on a 45 nm node. The die size reflects this: the Core i7-3520M measures 118 mm², while the Xeon X3460 measures 296 mm² and contains 774 million transistors.

Cache configurations differ as well. Both have 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 256 KB of L2 cache per core, but the shared L3 cache is 4 MB on the Core i7-3520M and 8 MB on the Xeon X3460. Memory support is another differentiator: the Core i7-3520M has no listed memory support in the database, while the Xeon X3460 supports DDR3 with a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. The Xeon X3460 supports ECC memory, the Core i7-3520M does not. The Xeon also has PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7-3520M has no listed PCIe configuration.

The Core i7-3520M includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), while the Xeon X3460 has none. The market segments differ: the Core i7-3520M is a mobile part, and the Xeon X3460 is a server or workstation part. The Xeon X3460 is marked as end-of-life in the database, while the Core i7-3520M has no production status listed. The Xeon X3460 has a launch MSRP of $316. The release dates are also different: the Core i7-3520M was released on 2012-06-02, and the Xeon X3460 on 2009-09-07. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is significant. The Intel Core i7-3520M is based on Ivy Bridge, a 22 nm architecture, while the Intel Xeon X3460 is based on Nehalem, specifically the Lynnfield codename, built on a 45 nm process. This means the Core i7-3520M uses a newer, denser manufacturing process, which likely contributes to its much lower 35 W TDP despite having a higher boost clock. The Xeon X3460, by contrast, uses an older and larger process, which helps explain its 95 W TDP and larger 296 mm² die size.

The core and thread counts differ fundamentally. The Core i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon X3460 has 4 cores and 8 threads. This gives the Xeon twice the parallel processing capacity on paper. However, the benchmark data shows the Xeon only leads by roughly 3.6% to 3.7% in multi-core Cinebench tests, which suggests that the Core i7-3520M's higher clock speeds (2.90 GHz base, 3.60 GHz boost versus 2.80 GHz base, 3.47 GHz boost) and newer architecture largely compensate for the core deficit in these specific workloads.

Cache hierarchies are similar in structure but differ in capacity. Both have 64 KB of L1 per core and 256 KB of L2 per core. The shared L3 cache is 4 MB on the Core i7-3520M and 8 MB on the Xeon X3460, so the Xeon has twice the last-level cache. The Xeon X3460 also supports DDR3 memory with a stated bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s and ECC memory, while the Core i7-3520M has no memory support details listed and does not support ECC.

The integrated graphics situation is a major architectural difference. The Core i7-3520M includes Intel HD 4000 graphics, making it a self-contained mobile processor. The Xeon X3460 has no integrated graphics at all, which is typical for a server or workstation part that expects a discrete GPU. The PCIe support also differs: the Xeon X3460 has PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only), while the Core i7-3520M has no PCIe details in the database. The memory bus is dual-channel for both, but the Xeon has a listed memory bandwidth while the Core i7-3520M does not.

The generation labels in the database highlight the architectural split: the Core i7-3520M is listed as "Core i7 (Ivy Bridge)" and the Xeon X3460 as "Xeon (Lynnfield)". The transistor count is only listed for the Xeon (774 million), and the die size difference (118 mm² versus 296 mm²) underscores how much more complex the older 45 nm chip is physically.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the recorded benchmark data, the Intel Xeon X3460 wins in every measured category. It leads in Cinebench R15 multi-core (253 versus 244), Cinebench R20 multi-core (1057 versus 1018), Cinebench R20 single-core (149 versus 143), Cinebench R23 multi-core (2518 versus 2426), and Cinebench R23 single-core (355 versus 342). The Xeon also has a higher average benchmark score (866 versus 843) and more cores, threads, and cache, making it the stronger choice for any workload that can leverage its additional resources.

The Core i7-3520M does not win any benchmark, but it has advantages that matter outside of raw Cinebench scores. Its 35 W TDP is far lower than the Xeon's 95 W, making it suitable for mobile systems where power and thermal limits are tight. It also includes integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks entirely, so a system built around the Core i7-3520M does not require a separate GPU for basic display output. The Core i7-3520M's newer 22 nm process and higher boost clock (3.60 GHz versus 3.47 GHz) mean it achieves near-parity with the Xeon despite having only half the cores and threads.

For multi-threaded rendering workloads, the Xeon X3460 is the clear pick based on the data, but the margin is small enough that the practical difference in daily use would be minimal. For single-threaded tasks, the Xeon still leads, but again by less than 4%. The Xeon's ECC memory support and 8 MB of L3 cache make it more suitable for server or workstation environments where data integrity and larger working sets are priorities. The Core i7-3520M, with its integrated graphics and low TDP, is the appropriate choice for a mobile platform where the Xeon's socket, power requirements, and lack of integrated graphics would be disqualifying factors. The data shows a consistent Xeon win across the board, but the use case split ultimately comes down to platform compatibility and power constraints rather than benchmark scores alone.