Intel Core i7-3520M vs Intel Xeon X5470 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-3520M and Intel Xeon X5470 are two processors from different eras and market segments, yet they land remarkably close in overall performance. The data shows a near dead-heat, with the Xeon X5470 edging out the Core i7-3520M in every single head-to-head benchmark, though by margins so slim they are almost statistically irrelevant. The Core i7-3520M posts an average benchmark score of 843, while the Xeon X5470 sits at 839, a difference of less than 0.5%. Both processors occupy the 22nd and 23rd percentiles of all CPUs, meaning they are entry-level performers by modern standards. The real story here is not raw speed, but rather the architectural and platform trade-offs that define these two chips.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are remarkably consistent across all five tests, with the Intel Xeon X5470 taking the win each time by a razor-thin margin. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 245 against the Core i7-3520M’s 244, a delta of just -0.4% in favor of the Xeon. The pattern repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the Xeon posts 1024 versus 1018 for the i7, a -0.6% difference. Single-core performance tells the same story: the Xeon leads 144 to 143 in Cinebench R20 single-core (-0.7%), and 344 to 342 in Cinebench R23 single-core (-0.6%). The largest gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the Xeon’s 2440 beats the i7’s 2426 by 14 points, still only a -0.6% margin.

What is striking is that the Xeon achieves these wins despite having a completely different core configuration. The Xeon X5470 is a true quad-core part with four physical cores and four threads, while the Core i7-3520M is a dual-core chip with Hyper-Threading, giving it two physical cores and four threads. One might expect the extra physical cores to deliver a decisive multi-core victory, but the data shows the i7-3520M’s newer architecture and higher efficiency nearly compensate for the core deficit. The Xeon’s lead in multi-core tests is just 0.4% to 0.6%, which is effectively a tie in real-world terms. In single-core tests, the Xeon also leads, but by similar negligible margins of 0.6% to 0.7%. This suggests that the Core i7-3520M’s Ivy Bridge architecture, despite having fewer cores, delivers comparable per-thread performance to the older Harpertown design.

The average benchmark scores confirm the parity: the Core i7-3520M averages 843, while the Xeon X5470 averages 839. The nearest rivals list for the i7-3520M includes the AMD FX-8800P at 843 (0.1% delta), the Intel Core i7-920 at 840 (0.3%), and the Intel Core i5-3380M at 838 (0.6%). The Xeon’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3380M at 838 (0.1%), the Intel Core i7-920 at 840 (-0.1%), and the Intel Core i5-5200U at 838 (0.2%). Both chips are clustered tightly with these contemporaries, indicating that neither holds a meaningful performance advantage over the other.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from fundamentally different generations and design philosophies. The Intel Core i7-3520M is built on a 22 nm process node using the Ivy Bridge architecture, codenamed Ivy Bridge, and is part of the Core i7 generation. It is a mobile-focused chip designed for laptops, with a 35 W TDP and an integrated GPU (Intel HD 4000). In contrast, the Intel Xeon X5470 is a server and workstation processor built on a 45 nm process node using the Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown, and is part of the Xeon generation. Its TDP is substantially higher at 120 W, and it has no integrated graphics whatsoever.

The die size reflects the generational gap: the i7-3520M has a die size of 118 mm², while the Xeon X5470 uses two dies of 107 mm² each, for a total of 214 mm². The Xeon also packs 820 million transistors, whereas the i7-3520M’s transistor count is not listed in the data. The cache hierarchies are also different. The i7-3520M has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 4 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon X5470 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, but 6 MB of L2 cache per die (with two dies, for a total of 12 MB), and no L3 cache at all. This is a classic trade-off: the Xeon relies on large on-die L2 caches, while the i7 uses a smaller but shared L3 cache.

Memory support also differs significantly. The i7-3520M supports dual-channel memory but the data does not specify the type, while the Xeon X5470 supports DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, also in a dual-channel configuration. The Xeon supports ECC memory, which is a critical feature for server workloads, while the i7-3520M does not. The Xeon also has PCIe Gen 2 support, while the i7-3520M’s PCIe details are not listed. The sockets are entirely incompatible: the i7-3520M uses Intel BGA 1023 (a mobile socket), while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 771 (a server socket).

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon X5470 wins all multi-core benchmarks, but by very slim margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 245 versus 244 for the Core i7-3520M (0.4% delta). In Cinebench R20 multi-core, it scores 1024 versus 1018 (0.6% delta). The Xeon’s advantage is consistent but negligible.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: The Xeon X5470 also leads in single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 144 versus 143 for the i7-3520M (0.7% delta). In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 344 versus 342 (0.6% delta). Again, the differences are within the margin of error.

Q: What is the core and thread count for each processor?

A: The Core i7-3520M has 2 cores and 4 threads, while the Xeon X5470 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The i7 uses Hyper-Threading to reach 4 threads, while the Xeon has purely physical cores.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon X5470 supports ECC memory, which is typical for server/workstation parts. The Core i7-3520M does not support ECC memory.

Q: What are the TDP ratings and form factors?

A: The Core i7-3520M is a mobile processor with a 35 W TDP and uses the Intel BGA 1023 socket. The Xeon X5470 is a server/workstation processor with a 120 W TDP and uses the Intel Socket 771. The Xeon is also marked as end-of-life in production status.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i7-3520M has integrated graphics, specifically the Intel HD 4000. The Xeon X5470 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for any visual output.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every key specification. The Core i7-3520M has a base clock of 2.90 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon X5470 has a higher base clock of 3.33 GHz but no boost clock at all. The i7-3520M is a dual-core with 4 threads, while the Xeon is a quad-core with 4 threads. The process node is 22 nm for the i7 versus 45 nm for the Xeon. The i7 has a die size of 118 mm², while the Xeon uses 2x 107 mm² dies. The i7 has 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon has 6 MB of L2 cache per die and no L3. The i7 supports non-ECC memory only, while the Xeon supports ECC memory. The i7 has integrated graphics (Intel HD 4000), while the Xeon has none. The i7 is a mobile part on Intel BGA 1023, while the Xeon is a server part on Intel Socket 771. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the i7’s production status is not listed. The Xeon also has a launch MSRP of $1386, while the i7 has no listed launch MSRP.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon X5470 wins every benchmark in the head-to-head comparison, but the margins are so small that they should not be the deciding factor for most users. The Xeon’s real advantages lie in its platform features: ECC memory support, higher base clock, and four physical cores. For a server or workstation environment where data integrity is paramount, ECC support is a non-negotiable feature that the Core i7-3520M simply cannot offer. The Xeon also has a higher base clock of 3.33 GHz versus 2.90 GHz, which can be advantageous in lightly threaded workloads that do not benefit from the i7’s boost clock. Its four physical cores may also provide more consistent performance in heavily threaded server tasks, even if the benchmark results do not show a dramatic difference.

The Intel Core i7-3520M wins in efficiency and mobility. Its 35 W TDP is dramatically lower than the Xeon’s 120 W, making it suitable for laptops and compact systems where heat and power are constraints. The integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics remove the need for a separate GPU in basic desktop use. The i7 also has a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon’s fixed 3.33 GHz, giving it a potential advantage in short burst single-threaded workloads. The 22 nm process node and newer Ivy Bridge architecture mean it is more power-efficient and produces less heat per unit of performance.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon X5470 is the marginally faster processor, winning all five head-to-head tests by less than 1%. However, this performance edge is so small that it is unlikely to be perceptible in real-world use. The decision between these two chips should instead be made on platform and feature fit. The Xeon X5470 is the choice for a server or workstation build where ECC memory is required, where a discrete GPU is already planned, and where the 120 W TDP is acceptable. Its four physical cores and higher base clock make it a solid, if aging, workhorse for multi-threaded server tasks. The Core i7-3520M is the choice for a mobile or low-power system where efficiency matters more than raw core count. Its integrated graphics, lower TDP, and boost clock make it far more practical for a laptop or compact desktop. In short, the data shows a statistical tie in performance, but a clear divergence in intended use. Pick the Xeon for the server room, pick the i7 for the road.