Intel Core i7-4600U vs Intel Xeon X5560 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon X5560 across every shared Cinebench test. In multi-core workloads, the Xeon leads by a consistent margin of 19% to 19.2%. For example, in Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon scores 276 against 232 for the Core i7-4600U, a 19% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows a similar story: 1154 versus 968, again a 19.2% gap. The R23 multi-core result is 2749 versus 2306, with the same 19.2% delta.

Single-core results also favor the Xeon, but by slightly different margins. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the Xeon scores 162 versus 136, a 19.1% lead. The R23 single-core test shows 388 versus 325, which is a 19.4% gap. These are not narrow victories; the Xeon is consistently ahead by roughly one-fifth in every benchmark category measured.

The Core i7-4600U has no benchmark wins in this head-to-head comparison. The win count is 5 for the Xeon and 0 for the i7. However, the i7-4600U has one additional benchmark not shared with the Xeon: Geekbench multi-core (1664) and single-core (889). These scores are not directly comparable to the Cinebench results, but they do show the i7’s capability in a different test suite. The average benchmark score for the Xeon is 946, while the i7-4600U sits at 931, a difference of 15 points. Both CPUs land in the 25th percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they occupy the same overall performance tier despite the Xeon’s consistent head-to-head wins.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different eras and design philosophies. The Xeon X5560 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, using a 45 nm process node. It is a server and workstation part with 4 cores and 8 threads. The Core i7-4600U uses the Haswell architecture, specifically Haswell-ULT, on a 22 nm process node. It is a mobile part with 2 cores and 4 threads. The process node difference is significant: 45 nm versus 22 nm, which explains the i7’s much smaller die size of 118 mm² compared to the Xeon’s 263 mm².

Transistor counts also differ substantially. The Xeon packs 731 million transistors, while the i7-4600U has 1,300 million. This is counterintuitive given the i7’s smaller die, but it reflects the more advanced 22 nm process. Cache configurations are another key divergence. Both have 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, but the L3 cache is very different: the Xeon has 8 MB shared, while the i7 has only 4 MB shared. The Xeon supports triple-channel DDR3 memory and ECC memory, features aimed at server reliability. The i7-4600U supports DDR3 but has no ECC, and the memory bus is not specified in the data.

The Xeon uses PCIe Gen 2, while the i7’s PCIe generation is not recorded. The i7 includes integrated graphics (Intel HD 5000), while the Xeon has none. The Xeon uses socket Intel Socket 1366, and the i7 uses Intel BGA 1168, a soldered mobile socket. The Xeon was released in March 2009, and the i7 in August 2013, a gap of over four years. The Xeon is marked as end-of-life production status, while the i7’s production status is not recorded.

The Verdict

For multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon X5560 is the clear choice. It wins every Cinebench test by roughly 19%, and it doubles the core and thread count. If your work involves rendering, batch processing, or any task that scales with cores, the data points directly to the Xeon. Its 8 MB of shared L3 cache and triple-channel memory support also favor memory-heavy server tasks.

For mobile or power-sensitive environments, the Core i7-4600U is the only practical option. Its 15 W TDP versus the Xeon’s 95 W TDP makes it suitable for laptops and compact systems. The i7 also has integrated graphics, which the Xeon lacks. If you need a CPU that can run without a discrete GPU, the i7 is the only one of the two that can do so.

The single-core results are closer than multi-core, but the Xeon still wins by 19.1% to 19.4%. Even in a task that does not use all threads, the Xeon’s higher base clock (2.80 GHz versus 2.10 GHz) and boost clock (3.20 GHz versus 3.30 GHz) do not override its architectural edge. The i7’s boost clock is actually higher, but the Xeon still wins single-core benchmarks. This suggests the Nehalem design has better single-thread efficiency per clock in these tests.

FAQ

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

A: The Intel Xeon X5560 wins all multi-core benchmarks. It scores 276 versus 232 in Cinebench R15, 1154 versus 968 in R20, and 2749 versus 2306 in R23, each a 19% or 19.2% lead.

Q: Does the Core i7-4600U win any benchmark?

A: No. In the head-to-head comparison, the i7-4600U has zero wins. The Xeon wins all 5 shared benchmarks. The i7 has Geekbench scores (1664 multi-core, 889 single-core) not present for the Xeon, but no direct victory.

Q: What is the core and thread difference?

A: The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads. The i7-4600U has 2 cores and 4 threads. The Xeon has double the core count and double the thread count.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Xeon X5560 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-4600U does not support ECC.

Q: What is the TDP difference?

A: The Xeon has a TDP of 95 W, while the i7-4600U has a TDP of 15 W. The i7 is designed for low-power mobile use.

Q: Do both CPUs have integrated graphics?

A: No. The Core i7-4600U includes Intel HD 5000 integrated graphics. The Xeon X5560 has no integrated graphics.

Where Each One Wins

The Xeon X5560 wins in every measured benchmark category in this comparison. That includes multi-core and single-core Cinebench tests. If you are rendering, encoding, compiling, or running server-side workloads, the Xeon’s 4 cores and 8 threads, combined with 8 MB of L3 cache and triple-channel DDR3 memory, give it a decisive edge. Its ECC support makes it suitable for reliability-critical tasks in servers or workstations. The Xeon also has a higher base clock (2.80 GHz), and while its boost clock (3.20 GHz) is lower than the i7’s 3.30 GHz, the benchmark results show it still outperforms in single-threaded tests.

The Core i7-4600U wins in use cases not covered by the benchmark suite. Its 15 W TDP makes it viable for fanless or low-power designs, where the 95 W Xeon would require substantial cooling. The integrated Intel HD 5000 graphics means the i7 can drive displays without a dedicated GPU, something the Xeon cannot do. The i7’s 22 nm process and 1,300 million transistors in a 118 mm² die indicate a much more modern and power-efficient design. Its 4 MB of L3 cache is smaller, but for mobile workloads like office productivity, media playback, or light coding, the i7 is the only choice that fits the physical and thermal constraints of a portable device.

Specification Differences

The two CPUs differ in nearly every fundamental specification. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads; the i7 has 2 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.80 GHz versus 2.10 GHz, and boost clocks are 3.20 GHz versus 3.30 GHz. The Xeon’s TDP is 95 W, the i7’s is 15 W. Sockets differ entirely: Intel Socket 1366 for the Xeon, Intel BGA 1168 for the i7. The architectures are Nehalem (Gainestown) versus Haswell (Haswell-ULT). Process nodes are 45 nm versus 22 nm. Transistor counts are 731 million versus 1,300 million, and die sizes are 263 mm² versus 118 mm².

Cache is identical for L1 (64 KB per core) and L2 (256 KB per core), but L3 differs: 8 MB shared for the Xeon, 4 MB shared for the i7. Memory support is DDR3 for both, but the Xeon uses triple-channel memory while the i7’s memory bus is not specified. ECC memory is supported only on the Xeon. PCIe generation is Gen 2 on the Xeon; the i7 has no recorded PCIe data. Integrated graphics are present only on the i7 (Intel HD 5000). The Xeon targets the server and workstation market, while the i7 is a mobile part. Release dates are March 2009 for the Xeon and August 2013 for the i7. The Xeon is end-of-life, while the i7’s production status is not recorded. Neither CPU has an unlocked multiplier.