Intel Core i7-5550U vs Intel Xeon X5482 Comparison

The Intel Core i7-5550U and Intel Xeon X5482 represent two very different eras of Intel design, yet benchmark results place them in a near-dead heat. The data shows the i7-5550U wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, but by margins of only 0.7% to 1.3%. Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, with average benchmark scores of 813 and 805 respectively. The i7-5550U edges out the Xeon in every single test, but the differences are so small that real-world workloads would be indistinguishable. The Xeon is a quad-core server part from 2007; the i7 is a dual-core mobile part from 2015. The verdict is not about raw speed—it is about platform and power context. Choose the i7-5550U if you need integrated graphics, a 15W TDP, and modern memory support. Choose the Xeon X5482 if you need four physical cores, ECC memory, and a Socket 771 workstation platform. Neither is a performance winner; the i7 is merely the less obsolete option in synthetic tests.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-5550U wins all five head-to-head comparisons, but the victory is symbolic rather than substantial. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the i7 scores 2363 versus the Xeon's 2341—a 0.9% difference. Single-core R23 shows 333 versus 330, also 0.9%. The largest gap is in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the i7 leads 238 to 235, a 1.3% advantage. These are margin-of-error numbers, and the average benchmark scores reflect that: 813 for the i7 against 805 for the Xeon. The i7 also ties the Xeon's closest rival, the Core 2 Extreme QX9775, at an average score of 813, while the Xeon matches the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U at 805.

Who should pick which? The i7-5550U is the only choice for a low-power, thin-and-light mobile system. Its 15W TDP makes it feasible for fanless or ultraportable designs, and its integrated Intel HD 6000 graphics eliminate the need for a discrete GPU. The Xeon X5482, with a 150W TDP and no integrated graphics, demands a serious cooling solution and a dedicated graphics card. If you are building a legacy Socket 771 workstation with ECC memory, the Xeon is the only option that fits that platform. The i7's 12 PCIe Gen 2 lanes are a limitation for multi-GPU setups; the Xeon's PCIe Gen 2 support is broader, though the data does not specify lane counts. The i7-5550U is the better all-around chip for modern software, but neither CPU will impress in 2025 workloads. The data suggests both are end-of-life parts that should only be chosen for specific platform requirements, not for performance.

Architecture Differences

The i7-5550U is a Broadwell-U mobile processor built on Intel's 14 nm process, packing 1,900 million transistors into a 133 mm² die. It features 2 cores and 4 threads via Hyper-Threading, with a base clock of 2.00 GHz and a boost clock of 3.00 GHz. Cache is organized as 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 4 MB shared L3. The Xeon X5482 is a Harpertown server part on the older 45 nm process, with 820 million transistors spread across a dual-die design of 2x 107 mm². It has 4 physical cores and 4 threads—no Hyper-Threading—with a fixed base clock of 3.20 GHz and no boost capability. Its cache is 64 KB L1 per core and 6 MB L2 per die, with no L3 cache at all.

The process node difference is stark: 14 nm versus 45 nm. That explains the TDP gap—15W versus 150W—and the transistor density. The i7 achieves nearly identical Cinebench scores with half the physical cores and a much lower clock speed, thanks to architectural improvements and a much larger L3 cache. The Xeon relies on brute force: four cores at 3.20 GHz, but with an older microarchitecture and no turbo. Memory support differs too: the i7 uses dual-channel DDR3 with a specified bandwidth of 29.9 GB/s, while the Xeon supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, with no bandwidth figure provided. The i7 has integrated Intel HD 6000 graphics; the Xeon has none. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the i7. PCIe is Gen 2 on both, but the i7 is limited to 12 CPU lanes while the Xeon's lane count is unspecified.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

Across five Cinebench tests, the i7-5550U wins every round, but the margins are tiny. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7 scores 238 against the Xeon's 235—a 1.3% lead, the largest delta in the set. Cinebench R20 multicore shows a 992 to 983 result, a 0.9% edge. Single-core R20 is 139 versus 138, a 0.7% gap, the smallest margin recorded. Cinebench R23 multicore repeats the 0.9% delta with scores of 2363 and 2341. Single-core R23 gives 333 versus 330, again 0.9%.

These results are consistent: the i7 never leads by more than 1.3%, and the Xeon never wins a single test. The practical interpretation is that the two chips are functionally equivalent in synthetic rendering workloads. The i7's 4 MB L3 cache and higher IPC compensate for its lower clock speed and half the physical cores. The Xeon's 3.20 GHz clock and four cores cannot overcome its older architecture and lack of L3 cache. Notably, the i7's average benchmark score of 813 puts it in a tie with the Core 2 Extreme QX9775, while the Xeon's 805 average matches the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U. The i7 also beats the Xeon's nearest rival, the Intel Core i5-3320M, by 0.3% (803), while the Xeon trails the i7-870S by 0.4% (809). The data does not support a claim of meaningful superiority for either part; it supports a claim of near-identical performance.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on nearly every specification that matters. The i7-5550U has 2 cores and 4 threads; the Xeon has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.00 GHz versus 3.20 GHz, and the i7 adds a 3.00 GHz boost clock while the Xeon has none. TDP is the biggest gap: 15W versus 150W. The i7 uses a 14 nm process with 1,900 million transistors on a 133 mm² die; the Xeon uses 45 nm with 820 million transistors on 2x 107 mm² dies. L3 cache is 4 MB shared on the i7, while the Xeon has no L3 cache and instead uses 6 MB L2 per die. Memory support: the i7 is DDR3 dual-channel with 29.9 GB/s bandwidth; the Xeon is DDR2 or DDR3 depending on motherboard, with no bandwidth listed. ECC memory is available on the Xeon only. Integrated graphics: Intel HD 6000 on the i7, none on the Xeon. Sockets are incompatible: Intel BGA 1168 for the i7, Intel Socket 771 for the Xeon. The i7 has 12 PCIe Gen 2 lanes; the Xeon's lane count is not specified. Release dates are 2015-02-28 for the i7 and 2007-11-10 for the Xeon. The i7's launch MSRP is $426; the Xeon's is $1279. Both are end-of-life and have locked multipliers.

FAQ

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

A: The i7-5550U wins all multi-core tests, but by less than 1.3%. In Cinebench R23 multicore, it scores 2363 versus the Xeon's 2341, a 0.9% advantage.

Q: Can the Xeon X5482 use ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Xeon supports ECC memory. The i7-5550U does not support ECC memory.

Q: Does the i7-5550U have integrated graphics?

A: Yes, it includes Intel HD 6000 graphics. The Xeon X5482 has no integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The i7-5550U has an average benchmark score of 813, which ties the Core 2 Extreme QX9775. The Xeon X5482 averages 805, matching the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U.

Q: Which processor has a higher TDP?

A: The Xeon X5482 has a 150W TDP, ten times higher than the i7-5550U's 15W TDP.

Q: Are these CPUs on the same socket?

A: No. The i7-5550U uses Intel BGA 1168, while the Xeon X5482 uses Intel Socket 771. They are not interchangeable.

Where Each One Wins

The i7-5550U wins every benchmark in the data set, but that does not make it the clear choice for every scenario. Its wins are narrow—0.7% to 1.3% across all Cinebench tests—so the "win" is more about efficiency than speed. The i7 wins in any use case where power consumption matters. A 15W TDP versus 150W means the i7 can operate in a slim laptop chassis with passive cooling, while the Xeon requires active cooling and a high-capacity power delivery system. The i7 also wins on platform integration: Intel HD 6000 graphics mean no separate GPU is needed for basic display output. For memory bandwidth, the i7's 29.9 GB/s is specified, while the Xeon's is not, giving the i7 a documented advantage. The i7's 4 MB L3 cache is also a win for workloads that benefit from shared cache, and its 14 nm process suggests better thermal behavior, though the data does not include temperature figures.

The Xeon X5482 wins on physical core count—4 versus 2—which matters for workloads that scale with cores but not threads. The i7's Hyper-Threading provides 4 threads, but the Xeon's 4 true cores are a different resource. The Xeon wins on ECC memory support, which is critical for error-sensitive server or workstation tasks. It also wins on raw clock speed: 3.20 GHz base versus 2.00 GHz base, useful for lightly threaded legacy software that does not benefit from turbo boost. The Xeon's 6 MB L2 per die is a different cache topology that may benefit certain server-style workloads, though the data does not provide specific tests. The Xeon's launch MSRP of $1279 suggests it was positioned as a premium server part, while the i7's $426 launch MSRP reflects its mobile mainstream status. For a server platform with ECC and quad-core physical processing, the Xeon is the only choice. For a mobile or low-power build with integrated graphics, the i7 is the only choice. There is no workload in the data where the Xeon outscores the i7, but there are platform requirements—ECC, Socket 771, four physical cores—where the Xeon is the sole option.