Intel Core i7-860 vs Intel Xeon X3460 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Are the Intel Xeon X3460 and Intel Core i7-860 fundamentally different processors?

A: No. The database shows both are built on the Nehalem architecture with the Lynnfield codename, produced on Intel's 45 nm process with 774 million transistors and a 296 mm² die size. Both have 4 cores, 8 threads, a 2.80 GHz base clock, and a 3.47 GHz boost clock.

Q: Which processor has a higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-860 holds a slim advantage with an average benchmark score of 886, compared to the Xeon X3460's 866. This places the i7-860 at the 24th percentile of all CPUs, while the Xeon sits at the 23rd percentile.

Q: What is the biggest performance gap between the two in the recorded benchmarks?

A: The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 single-core, where the Core i7-860 scores 363 versus the Xeon's 355, a 2.2% difference. The smallest gap is in Cinebench R20 single-core, with the i7-860 at 152 and the Xeon at 149, a 2% difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Xeon X3460 supports ECC memory as a server/workstation part, while the Core i7-860 does not. Both support DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, though the Xeon lists a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s and the i7-860 does not have this figure recorded.

Q: Which processor has a higher launch price?

A: The database only lists a launch MSRP for the Xeon X3460 at $316. No launch MSRP is recorded for the Core i7-860, so a direct price comparison cannot be made from the available data.

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

A: The Xeon X3460 is nearly matched with the Intel Core i7-3540M, which scores 867 (a 0.1% difference), and the Intel Core i5-3470T at 863 (0.3% ahead). The Core i7-860 sits closest to the AMD PRO A8-8650B and Intel Pentium G4560T, both scoring 887 (0.1% ahead of the i7-860).

Architecture Differences

Both processors are virtually identical at the architectural level. They share the same Nehalem microarchitecture, the Lynnfield codename, and are fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process. The transistor count is identical at 774 million, and the die size is the same at 296 mm². The cache hierarchy is also unchanged: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache.

The key differences are not in the silicon but in the market positioning and feature enablement. The Xeon X3460 targets the server and workstation segment, while the Core i7-860 is a desktop part. This distinction manifests in ECC memory support: the Xeon enables it, the i7 does not. The memory bandwidth figure of 21.3 GB/s is recorded for the Xeon but absent for the i7-860, though both use dual-channel DDR3.

The PCIe configuration is identical: Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. Neither processor includes integrated graphics. Both are end-of-life products released on the same date, September 7, 2009. The part numbers differ (SLBJK for the Xeon, SLBJJ for the i7), but the underlying silicon appears functionally equivalent, with the Xeon's server-oriented validation and ECC support being the primary architectural differentiator.

The production status is end-of-life for both, and neither has an unlocked multiplier. The generation labels differ only in name: "Xeon (Lynnfield)" versus "Core i7 (Lynnfield)", confirming that these are sibling dies repurposed for different markets.

The Verdict

The data shows an exceptionally close contest. Across all five recorded Cinebench tests, the Core i7-860 wins every single one, but by margins of only 2.0% to 2.3%. The average benchmark score favors the i7-860 by 20 points (886 versus 866), and it holds a one-percentile advantage (24th versus 23rd percentile).

For desktop users, the Core i7-860 is the clear choice based on raw performance. It matches the Xeon's core and thread configuration, runs at identical clocks, and posts slightly higher scores in every workload tested. The absence of ECC support is irrelevant for mainstream desktop use.

For server or workstation deployments where data integrity is paramount, the Xeon X3460 presents a compelling counterargument. While it trails by roughly 2% in every benchmark, it offers ECC memory support, a feature that can prevent silent data corruption in memory. The 21.3 GB/s memory bandwidth figure is also recorded for the Xeon, providing a documented specification for server planning.

The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce their positioning. The Xeon X3460 competes with mobile and low-power desktop parts like the Core i7-3540M (867 average) and Core i5-3470T (863), while the Core i7-860 sits alongside the AMD PRO A8-8650B (887) and Pentium G4560T (887). Neither chip is a performance leader by modern standards; both sit in the bottom quarter of all CPUs.

Buyers with an existing Socket 1156 platform should choose based on workload: the i7-860 for pure performance, the Xeon for ECC reliability. Those building new systems would find both obsolete, given their end-of-life status and low percentiles.

Specification Differences

The following fields differ between the Intel Xeon X3460 and Intel Core i7-860:

• Market Segment: Server/Workstation (Xeon) vs. Desktop (i7)
• ECC Memory: Supported (Xeon) vs. Not supported (i7)
• Memory Bandwidth: 21.3 GB/s (Xeon) vs. Not recorded (i7)
• Launch MSRP: $316 (Xeon) vs. Not recorded (i7)
• Part Number: SLBJK (Xeon) vs. SLBJJ (i7)
• Generation Label: "Xeon (Lynnfield)" vs. "Core i7 (Lynnfield)"
• Average Benchmark Score: 866 (Xeon) vs. 886 (i7)
• Percentile vs. All CPUs: 23rd (Xeon) vs. 24th (i7)

All other specification fields are identical: 4 cores, 8 threads, 2.80 GHz base clock, 3.47 GHz boost clock, 95 W TDP, Socket 1156, Nehalem architecture, Lynnfield codename, 45 nm process, Intel foundry, 774 million transistors, 296 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 8 MB shared L3, DDR3 memory, dual-channel bus, PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes, no integrated graphics, end-of-life production status, release date of September 7, 2009, and locked multipliers.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent: the Core i7-860 wins all five tests, and the margin never exceeds 2.3%.

Cinebench R15 Multi-Core: The i7-860 scores 259, the Xeon scores 253, giving the i7 a 2.3% advantage. This is the largest delta in the entire comparison. In this test, 6 points separate the two chips, a small but measurable gap.

Cinebench R20 Multi-Core: The i7-860 posts 1081, the Xeon posts 1057, a 2.2% difference. The 24-point spread here suggests the i7 maintains its edge as the workload scales.

Cinebench R20 Single-Core: The i7-860 scores 152, the Xeon scores 149, a 2% difference. The 3-point gap in single-threaded performance indicates that the i7's advantage is not dependent on multi-core scaling; it wins even in lightly threaded tasks.

Cinebench R23 Multi-Core: The i7-860 scores 2574, the Xeon scores 2518, a 2.2% difference. The 56-point margin here is the largest absolute gap in any test, though the percentage remains consistent with the other multi-core results.

Cinebench R23 Single-Core: The i7-860 scores 363, the Xeon scores 355, a 2.2% difference. The 8-point gap mirrors the R20 single-core result in percentage terms, reinforcing the pattern.

The overall tally is 5 wins for the Core i7-860 and 0 for the Xeon X3460. The consistency of the delta across different Cinebench versions (R15, R20, R23) and workload types (single versus multi-core) suggests a small but systematic performance advantage for the i7-860, likely stemming from its desktop-oriented validation rather than any architectural difference.

For context, the Xeon's nearest rival, the Core i7-3540M, scores 867, which is 1 point higher than the Xeon's 866. The i7-860's nearest rival, the AMD PRO A8-8650B, scores 887, just 1 point above its 886. Both chips are clustered tightly with their peers, and the 20-point gap between the two processors is meaningful within this narrow band.

The benchmark data does not include any test where the Xeon wins, so the recorded evidence points decisively to the Core i7-860 as the faster processor in every measured scenario. However, the margins are small enough that real-world differences would be imperceptible in most applications, and the Xeon's ECC support remains the sole functional advantage worth considering.