Intel Core i7-3687U vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data presents a surprisingly one-sided picture. The Intel Core i7-3687U wins every single head-to-head benchmark recorded in the database, taking all five comparisons with a perfect 5-0 record. The Intel Xeon X5460, despite having twice the physical cores, does not secure a single victory in any tested workload.

The i7-3687U claims victory in both single-core and multi-core tests. This is notable because the Xeon X5460 is a quad-core part while the i7-3687U is a dual-core processor with Hyper-Threading (4 threads). The fact that the mobile chip beats the server chip in multi-threaded Cinebench tests suggests that architectural efficiency and clock behavior matter more than raw core count in these specific workloads.

Looking at the broader performance context, the i7-3687U holds a 21st percentile ranking among all CPUs in the database, while the Xeon X5460 sits at the 20th percentile. The average benchmark score for the i7-3687U is 773, compared to 754 for the Xeon X5460. This places the i7-3687U slightly higher in the overall performance distribution, though both chips occupy a similar tier in the database's ranking system.

The nearest rivals for the i7-3687U include the Intel Core i5-680 (avg score 772, delta 0.2%), Intel Core i3-3250T (avg score 775, delta -0.2%), Intel Celeron G5920 (avg score 775, delta -0.2%), and Intel Pentium Silver J5005 (avg score 776, delta -0.4%). For the Xeon X5460, its nearest rivals are the Intel Core i5-3230M (avg score 754, delta -0.1%), Intel Core i5-4250U (avg score 756, delta -0.2%), Intel Xeon E5450 (avg score 756, delta -0.3%), and Intel Core i3-5020U (avg score 757, delta -0.4%). These rival comparisons show both processors landing in a tightly packed performance neighborhood.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more physical cores?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 has 4 physical cores and 4 threads, while the Intel Core i7-3687U has 2 physical cores and 4 threads thanks to Hyper-Threading technology.

Q: How do the single-core performances compare?

A: The i7-3687U wins all recorded single-core tests. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 132 versus 129 for the Xeon X5460, a 2.3% advantage. In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 315 versus 309, a 1.9% lead.

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

A: The i7-3687U has a TDP of 17 watts, while the Xeon X5460 has a TDP of 120 watts. This represents a substantial difference in thermal design power, with the mobile chip drawing significantly less power.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 supports ECC memory (true), while the Intel Core i7-3687U does not have ECC memory support (false in the data).

Q: What are the release dates for these processors?

A: The Intel Core i7-3687U was released on January 7, 2013, while the Intel Xeon X5460 was released on November 10, 2007.

Q: Does the i7-3687U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, the Intel Core i7-3687U includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics. The Intel Xeon X5460 has no integrated graphics in its specifications.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head benchmark results show consistent, though modest, advantages for the Intel Core i7-3687U across all five recorded tests. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the i7-3687U scores 132 against the Xeon X5460's 129, a 2.3% difference. This is the single biggest percentage gap in any test.

In multi-core workloads, the pattern repeats with slightly smaller margins. Cinebench R15 multicore shows the i7-3687U at 224 versus 220 for the Xeon X5460, a 1.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multicore mirrors this exactly: 937 versus 920, again a 1.8% difference. Cinebench R23 multicore follows the same trend at 2231 versus 2191, also 1.8%.

Single-core results in Cinebench R23 show 315 for the i7-3687U and 309 for the Xeon X5460, a 1.9% advantage. Across all tests, the i7-3687U's advantage ranges from 1.8% to 2.3%, a narrow but consistent margin.

The database also records additional benchmarks for the i7-3687U that are not part of the head-to-head comparison. In Geekbench multicore, it scores 1044, and in Geekbench singlecore, it scores 526. These scores contribute to its average benchmark score of 773. The Xeon X5460's average benchmark score is 754, based on its recorded Cinebench results.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every fundamental specification category. The most obvious difference is core count: the i7-3687U has 2 cores with 4 threads, while the Xeon X5460 has 4 cores with 4 threads. This means the Xeon has no simultaneous multithreading, while the i7-3687U doubles its thread count through Hyper-Threading.

Clock speeds differ significantly. The i7-3687U has a base clock of 2.10 GHz and a boost clock of 3.30 GHz. The Xeon X5460 has a higher base clock of 3.17 GHz but no recorded boost clock, indicating it may run at a fixed frequency.

Power consumption presents a stark contrast. The i7-3687U carries a 17-watt TDP, making it suitable for mobile applications. The Xeon X5460 draws 120 watts, a figure more than seven times higher, reflecting its server/workstation heritage.

Socket compatibility is entirely different. The i7-3687U uses Intel BGA 1023, a soldered mobile socket, while the Xeon X5460 uses Intel Socket 771, a server platform socket. These are not interchangeable in any system.

Memory support also differs. The i7-3687U supports DDR3 memory with dual-channel configuration. The Xeon X5460 supports both DDR2 and DDR3, with the actual support depending on the motherboard. Both use dual-channel memory buses. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon X5460.

The i7-3687U includes Intel HD 4000 integrated graphics, while the Xeon X5460 has no integrated graphics. The Xeon X5460 does list PCIe Gen 2 support, while the i7-3687U has no PCIe information recorded.

Market segments reflect their intended uses: the i7-3687U is classified as Mobile, while the Xeon X5460 is a Server/Workstation part. The Xeon X5460 is marked as end-of-life in production status, while the i7-3687U has no production status recorded.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these processors spans several generations of Intel design. The i7-3687U is built on Ivy Bridge architecture, manufactured on a 22 nm process node. The Xeon X5460 uses the older Core 2 architecture with the Harpertown codename, built on a 45 nm process. This process difference is significant: the 22 nm node allows for much smaller transistors and greater power efficiency.

The die sizes tell an interesting story. The i7-3687U has a die size of 118 mm², while the Xeon X5460 uses two dies of 107 mm² each, totaling 214 mm². The Xeon's dual-die design reflects its multi-chip construction. The Xeon X5460 has 820 million transistors recorded, while the i7-3687U has no transistor count listed in the database.

Cache hierarchies differ substantially. Both have 64 KB L1 cache per core and 256 KB L2 cache per core for the i7-3687U. The Xeon X5460 instead has 6 MB L2 cache per die, which with two dies gives it a different cache distribution. The i7-3687U adds 4 MB of shared L3 cache, while the Xeon X5460 has no L3 cache recorded.

The generation labeling places the i7-3687U in the Core i7 (Ivy Bridge) generation, while the Xeon X5460 belongs to the Xeon (Harpertown) generation. Both are manufactured by Intel, but they represent very different design philosophies and time periods. The Xeon X5460 was released on November 10, 2007, while the i7-3687U followed on January 7, 2013, a gap of more than five years.

The i7-3687U's part number is SR0XH, while the Xeon X5460 has part numbers SLANP and SLBBA recorded. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking would require external methods rather than simple multiplier adjustment.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear winner: the Intel Core i7-3687U outperforms the Intel Xeon X5460 in every recorded benchmark. Despite having half the physical cores, the i7-3687U's newer architecture, higher boost clock, and Hyper-Threading give it a consistent 1.8% to 2.3% advantage across all Cinebench tests.

For users focused on single-threaded performance, the i7-3687U is the better choice. Its 2.3% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core and 1.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core demonstrate that its boost clock of 3.30 GHz, combined with the Ivy Bridge architecture, delivers superior per-thread performance compared to the Xeon's 3.17 GHz fixed clock.

For multi-threaded workloads, the results are more surprising. The Xeon X5460's 4 physical cores do not translate into a win over the i7-3687U's 2 cores and 4 threads. The i7-3687U wins all three multi-core Cinebench tests by 1.8% margins. This suggests that the architectural improvements in Ivy Bridge, including the 22 nm process and shared L3 cache, compensate for the core count disadvantage.

The Xeon X5460 does offer advantages in specific areas. It supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server environments. It also has a higher base clock at 3.17 GHz and supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory depending on the motherboard. Its 120-watt TDP reflects a design optimized for sustained server workloads rather than power efficiency.

The i7-3687U's 17-watt TDP makes it dramatically more power-efficient, consuming roughly one-seventh the power of the Xeon X5460. For mobile deployments or any power-constrained environment, this difference is decisive. The integrated Intel HD 4000 graphics also eliminates the need for a separate GPU in basic display scenarios.

The average benchmark scores place the i7-3687U at 773 versus 754 for the Xeon X5460. Percentile rankings are close, 21st versus 20th, but the i7-3687U holds the edge. The nearest rival comparisons show the i7-3687U within 0.4% of the Intel Pentium Silver J5005 and the Xeon X5460 within 0.4% of the Intel Core i3-5020U, placing both in a similar performance tier.

The i7-3687U is the recommended choice for most workloads based on benchmark data. It wins every performance test, consumes far less power, includes integrated graphics, and comes from a newer architecture generation. The Xeon X5460 is appropriate only for scenarios requiring ECC memory support or compatibility with the Socket 771 platform, where its specific feature set becomes necessary despite its lower benchmark scores.