Intel Core i7-3687U vs Intel Xeon E5450 Comparison

The Verdict

The benchmark data presents an unusually close contest between two processors from very different eras and market segments. The Intel Core i7-3687U, a 2013 mobile part, wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, but by margins so slim they border on statistical noise. The Intel Xeon E5450, a 2007 server/workstation chip, trails by only 1.4% to 1.6% across every test. For raw compute performance, the data suggests these two are essentially equivalent, despite their vastly different origins. The Core i7-3687U is the pick for anyone needing integrated graphics, lower power draw, and modern platform features. The Xeon E5450, with its four physical cores, ECC memory support, and server pedigree, remains relevant for legacy workstation builds where platform compatibility and memory integrity matter more than efficiency. Neither chip dominates; the choice hinges entirely on the surrounding system requirements.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is substantial, reflecting a five-year evolution in Intel's design philosophy. The Core i7-3687U uses the Ivy Bridge architecture on a 22 nm process node, while the Xeon E5450 relies on the older Core 2 architecture built on a 45 nm process. This process shrink is significant: the i7 packs its transistors into a die size of 118 mm², whereas the Xeon uses a dual-die design totaling 2x 107 mm². The Xeon's transistor count is listed as 820 million, a figure not provided for the i7, but the density advantage of the 22 nm node is evident from the smaller combined footprint.

Core configuration differs markedly. The i7-3687U has 2 physical cores with 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Xeon E5450 has 4 physical cores with 4 threads, no Hyper-Threading. This means the i7 relies on thread scheduling to fill its execution units, whereas the Xeon offers raw multi-core capacity without the overhead of virtual threads. Cache hierarchies also diverge: both share 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, but the i7 features 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon has no L3 at all, instead providing 6 MB of L2 per die. For a 2007 server chip, that large L2 was the primary cache reservoir, a design choice that predates the widespread adoption of L3 in Intel client parts.

Clock speeds tell a story of different design goals. The Xeon runs at a fixed 3.00 GHz base clock with no boost capability, prioritizing predictable server workloads. The i7 starts lower at 2.10 GHz but boosts up to 3.30 GHz, a dynamic range suited to bursty mobile workloads where thermal headroom fluctuates. Power envelopes could not be more different: the i7 is rated at 17 W TDP, while the Xeon consumes 80 W TDP, a nearly five-fold difference that reflects the mobile versus server/desktop design split.

Platform support separates these chips further. The i7 uses Intel BGA 1023, a soldered mobile socket, and pairs with DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode. The Xeon uses Intel Socket 771, a server socket, and supports both DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, also in dual-channel configuration. The Xeon supports ECC memory, a critical feature for error correction in server environments; the i7 does not. The Xeon also brings PCIe Gen 2 support, while the i7's PCIe capabilities are not specified in the database. The i7 includes integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics; the Xeon has no integrated GPU, requiring a discrete video card. The i7 targets the mobile segment, while the Xeon was built for server/workstation use, and the database lists the Xeon as end-of-life production status.

FAQ

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

A: The Core i7-3687U wins every single-core benchmark, but by a hair. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 132 versus the Xeon's 130, a 1.5% lead. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the margin is 315 versus 310, a 1.6% advantage. The boost clock of 3.30 GHz likely contributes to this edge, but the difference is minimal.

Q: Does the Xeon E5450's four physical cores give it a multi-core advantage?

A: No, the data shows the opposite. Despite having twice the physical core count, the Xeon loses all multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 224 versus 221, and in R23 multi-core, 2231 versus 2198. The i7's Hyper-Threading and newer architecture compensate for its two-core deficit, producing a 1.4% to 1.5% win.

Q: Can the Xeon E5450 use ECC memory?

A: Yes, the database specifies that the Xeon E5450 supports ECC memory, a standard feature for server platforms. The Core i7-3687U does not support ECC, which could be a deciding factor for users who require error-correcting memory in their workloads.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference between these two chips?

A: The Core i7-3687U is rated at 17 W TDP, while the Xeon E5450 is rated at 80 W TDP. This makes the i7 far more suitable for compact, passively cooled, or battery-powered systems, whereas the Xeon demands a more robust cooling solution and power delivery.

Q: Which processor has integrated graphics?

A: Only the Core i7-3687U includes integrated graphics, specifically Intel HD 4000. The Xeon E5450 has no integrated graphics, so a separate GPU is mandatory for any display output.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals in the database?

A: The i7-3687U has an average benchmark score of 773, placing it 0.2% above the Intel Core i5-680 and 0.2% below the Intel Core i3-3250T and Intel Celeron G5920. The Xeon E5450 averages 756, exactly matching the Intel Core i5-4250U, with the Core i3-5020U 0.2% higher and the Core i5-3230M 0.2% lower. Both chips sit near the 20th percentile of all CPUs, with the i7 at 21% and the Xeon at 20%.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ across nearly every fundamental specification. Core count: the i7 has 2 cores, the Xeon has 4. Thread count: both have 4 threads, but the i7 achieves this through Hyper-Threading on 2 cores, while the Xeon uses 4 physical cores without SMT. Base clock: the i7 runs at 2.10 GHz, the Xeon at 3.00 GHz. Boost clock: the i7 reaches 3.30 GHz, the Xeon has no boost capability. TDP: 17 W for the i7 versus 80 W for the Xeon. Socket: Intel BGA 1023 for the i7, Intel Socket 771 for the Xeon. Architecture: Ivy Bridge versus Core 2. Codename: Ivy Bridge versus Harpertown. Process node: 22 nm versus 45 nm. Die size: 118 mm² versus 2x 107 mm². L3 cache: 4 MB shared on the i7, none on the Xeon. L2 cache: 256 KB per core on the i7, 6 MB per die on the Xeon. Memory support: DDR3 on the i7, DDR2 and DDR3 on the Xeon depending on motherboard. ECC memory: not supported on the i7, supported on the Xeon. PCIe: not specified for the i7, Gen 2 on the Xeon. Integrated graphics: Intel HD 4000 on the i7, none on the Xeon. Market segment: Mobile versus Server/Workstation. Production status: not specified for the i7, End-of-life for the Xeon. Release date: January 2013 for the i7, November 2007 for the Xeon. Launch MSRP: none for the i7, $915 for the Xeon.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent, with the Core i7-3687U winning all five tests by margins between 1.4% and 1.6%. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the i7 scores 224 against the Xeon's 221, a 1.4% delta. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 937 versus 923, a 1.5% lead. The single-core tests follow the same pattern: R20 single-core gives the i7 a 132 to 130 win, and R23 single-core gives 315 to 310, both at 1.5% and 1.6% respectively. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R23 single-core at 1.6%, while the smallest is R15 multi-core at 1.4%.

These margins are tiny, essentially within run-to-run variance for most benchmarking environments. The i7's wins are consistent across both single and multi-core workloads, which suggests a slight architectural efficiency advantage rather than a clock speed or core count effect. The Xeon's higher base clock of 3.00 GHz does not translate into a win even in single-threaded tests, where the i7's 3.30 GHz boost clock provides a modest edge. In multi-core tests, the Xeon's four physical cores should theoretically dominate the i7's two cores plus Hyper-Threading, but the newer Ivy Bridge architecture appears to extract more instructions per clock, erasing the core count deficit.

The i7 also has a higher average benchmark score of 773 versus the Xeon's 756, a difference of about 2.2%. This aggregate metric, which includes Geekbench results for the i7 (1044 multi-core, 526 single-core) that the Xeon lacks, reinforces the i7's overall standing. The percentile rankings align with this: the i7 sits at the 21st percentile of all CPUs, the Xeon at the 20th, a one-point gap that mirrors the performance delta.

Where Each One Wins

The Core i7-3687U wins in every direct benchmark comparison, but the practical implications extend beyond raw scores. The i7's 17 W TDP makes it the clear choice for mobile, ultrabook, or embedded applications where power draw and heat dissipation are primary constraints. Its integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU, simplifying system design and reducing cost in compact builds. The 22 nm process and 2013 release date mean it supports newer instruction sets and memory technologies, and its boost clock of 3.30 GHz provides responsiveness in bursty workloads like web browsing or office productivity. The i7 also edges out the Xeon in single-core tests, which matters for older software that relies on single-threaded performance.

The Xeon E5450 wins where platform features matter more than benchmark scores. Its ECC memory support is a non-negotiable requirement for many server and workstation environments where data corruption is unacceptable. The four physical cores, even without Hyper-Threading, offer predictable multi-threaded scaling for workloads that do not benefit from virtual threads. The 3.00 GHz fixed clock delivers consistent performance without boost variance, which can be advantageous in real-time or latency-sensitive applications. The Xeon's Socket 771 platform, while aging, still supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory options, providing flexibility for legacy system upgrades. Its 80 W TDP, while high, is manageable in tower or rack chassis designed for server components. The database lists the Xeon as end-of-life, but for existing infrastructure, it remains a viable workhorse.

The data suggests a split decision based on use case. For new builds prioritizing efficiency, graphics, and modern features, the i7-3687U is the logical choice. For upgrading or populating existing server platforms that require ECC memory and physical core count, the Xeon E5450 holds its ground. The benchmark scores show near-parity, so the deciding factors lie entirely outside the Cinebench and Geekbench numbers: power, graphics, memory integrity, and platform longevity.