Intel Core i7-860S vs Intel Xeon E5450 Comparison

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon E5450 and Intel Core i7-860S represent two distinct architectural generations from Intel, separated by roughly two years of design evolution. The Xeon E5450 is built on the Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown, and was released in November 2007. It uses a 45 nm process node with 820 million transistors spread across a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm². The chip is physically organized as two dies, each containing 6 MB of L2 cache, for a total of 12 MB of L2 cache across the package. L1 cache is 64 KB per core. It supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory, depending on the motherboard, with dual-channel memory bus. ECC memory is supported, reflecting its server/workstation market segment. The socket is Intel Socket 771, and PCIe support is Gen 2.

The Core i7-860S, by contrast, is a Nehalem architecture part, codenamed Lynnfield, released in January 2010. It also uses a 45 nm process, but with 774 million transistors on a single die of 296 mm². The cache hierarchy is different: L1 is 64 KB per core, L2 is 256 KB per core (larger per-core than the Xeon’s per-die arrangement), and there is an 8 MB shared L3 cache, which the Xeon lacks entirely. Memory support is limited to DDR3, still dual-channel, but ECC is not supported. It uses Intel Socket 1156 and provides PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. The market segment is desktop.

Clock speeds also differ. The Xeon E5450 has a fixed base clock of 3.00 GHz with no boost clock. The Core i7-860S runs at a lower base clock of 2.53 GHz but can boost up to 3.47 GHz, leveraging the Nehalem Turbo Boost feature. Threading is another significant divergence: the Xeon is a 4-core, 4-thread part, while the Core i7-860S is 4-core, 8-thread, using Hyper-Threading. TDP is nearly identical: 80 W for the Xeon, 82 W for the i7-860S.

Both parts are end-of-life production. The Xeon E5450 carries a launch MSRP of $915 and part number SLANQSLBBM. The Core i7-860S has no recorded launch MSRP and part number SLBLG. Neither processor has integrated graphics, and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

The architectural differences are central to understanding benchmark outcomes. The Xeon’s higher fixed clock (3.00 GHz vs 2.53 GHz base) and larger aggregate L2 cache give it an advantage in workloads that rely on raw frequency and cache access. The i7-860S counters with Hyper-Threading, a shared L3 cache, and a higher boost clock, but the recorded benchmarks show that these features do not translate into wins in the tested Cinebench suite.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both have 4 physical cores. The Intel Xeon E5450 has 4 threads total, while the Intel Core i7-860S has 8 threads due to Hyper-Threading support.

Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes for the Xeon E5450, which supports ECC memory as part of its server/workstation design. The Core i7-860S does not support ECC memory.

Q: What is the difference in base clock speeds?

A: The Xeon E5450 runs at a base clock of 3.00 GHz with no boost capability. The Core i7-860S has a base clock of 2.53 GHz but can boost to 3.47 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a larger cache?

A: The Xeon E5450 has 64 KB L1 per core and 6 MB L2 per die (12 MB total across two dies), with no L3. The Core i7-860S has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. In total cache capacity, the Xeon has more L2, but the i7-860S adds a substantial L3.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each?

A: The Xeon E5450 has an average benchmark score of 756, while the Core i7-860S has an average of 740. Both sit at the 20th percentile among all CPUs in the database.

Q: Which processor wins in all recorded head-to-head Cinebench tests?

A: The Xeon E5450 wins all five head-to-head tests, with deltas ranging from 9.4% to 10.2% over the Core i7-860S.

Where Each One Wins

Based on the recorded data, the Intel Xeon E5450 is the clear winner across every benchmark test in the head-to-head comparison. It wins all five Cinebench tests: R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, R23 multicore, and R23 singlecore. The Core i7-860S does not win a single recorded test in this comparison. However, the i7-860S has additional Geekbench scores that are not part of the head-to-head set: a multicore score of 1298 and a singlecore score of 425. These were not compared against the Xeon, so they provide context but do not change the head-to-head outcome.

For use cases, the Xeon E5450 is better suited for workloads that are sensitive to raw single-thread performance and multicore throughput in the Cinebench suite. Its higher fixed clock and larger L2 cache give it an edge in rendering and compute tasks that Cinebench models. The i7-860S, with its 8 threads, might be expected to excel in heavily threaded workloads, but the data shows otherwise: in Cinebench R23 multicore, the Xeon scores 2198 versus 2010 for the i7-860S, a 9.4% advantage despite the i7 having twice the thread count. This suggests that the Xeon’s clock advantage and cache design outweigh the benefit of Hyper-Threading in these specific tests.

The i7-860S does have the advantage of a boost clock up to 3.47 GHz, which could help in short burst workloads, but the recorded Cinebench tests do not show this translating into a win. The presence of an 8 MB shared L3 cache on the i7-860S could benefit workloads with larger working sets, but again, the benchmark results do not reflect that advantage. For users prioritizing Cinebench-style rendering, the Xeon is the stronger pick. For users who need ECC memory or a server/workstation platform, the Xeon is the only choice here. The i7-860S, being a desktop part with no ECC, is more suited to general desktop use, but the data indicates it trails the Xeon in all compared metrics.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The five recorded head-to-head tests are all Cinebench variants, and the Xeon E5450 wins every one. The smallest margin is 9.4%, appearing in three tests: Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, and R23 multicore. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Xeon scores 221 against the i7-860S’s 202. In R20 multicore, the scores are 923 vs 844. In R23 multicore, the scores are 2198 vs 2010. Each of these shows a 9.4% delta in favor of the Xeon.

The singlecore tests show slightly larger margins. In Cinebench R20 singlecore, the Xeon scores 130 versus 118 for the i7-860S, a 10.2% delta. In Cinebench R23 singlecore, the Xeon scores 310 versus 283, a 9.5% delta. These singlecore results are particularly telling because the i7-860S has a boost clock of 3.47 GHz, which is higher than the Xeon’s fixed 3.00 GHz. Despite the higher boost clock, the Xeon still outperforms the i7-860S by about 10% in single-threaded tests. This indicates that the Xeon’s per-core efficiency, likely due to its Core 2 architecture and larger L2 cache, overcomes the clock deficit.

The multicore results are also surprising given the thread count difference. The i7-860S has 8 threads to the Xeon’s 4, yet it loses by 9.4% in every multicore test. This suggests that Hyper-Threading on the Nehalem architecture does not effectively double throughput in Cinebench workloads, and the Xeon’s 4 physical cores at 3.00 GHz are more efficient than the i7’s 4 cores at 2.53 GHz base with Hyper-Threading.

The Xeon’s average benchmark score is 756, while the i7-860S averages 740. That is a 2.2% difference in the database-wide average, but the head-to-head deltas are much larger, ranging from 9.4% to 10.2%. The nearest rivals for the Xeon include the Intel Core i5-4250U (avg 756, 0% delta), Intel Core i3-5020U (avg 757, -0.2%), Intel Core i5-3230M (avg 754, 0.2%), and Intel Core i5-3210M (avg 758, -0.2%). For the i7-860S, nearest rivals are the Intel Pentium G4400 (avg 740, 0.1%), Intel Core i5-670 (avg 741, -0.1%), AMD Phenom II X4 B97 (avg 741, -0.1%), and Intel Xeon E5520 (avg 742, -0.2%). These rival comparisons show that both processors sit in a similar performance tier overall, but the head-to-head data reveals a consistent Xeon advantage.

The biggest win for the Xeon is in Cinebench R20 singlecore, where it leads by 10.2%. The biggest win for the i7-860S does not exist, as it wins zero tests. The Xeon’s wins are consistent across all tests, suggesting a structural performance advantage rather than a workload-specific fluke.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon E5450 outperforms the Intel Core i7-860S in every recorded head-to-head benchmark. The Xeon leads by 9.4% in all three multicore Cinebench tests (R15, R20, R23) and by 9.5% to 10.2% in the two singlecore tests (R20 and R23). This is despite the i7-860S having twice the thread count (8 vs 4) and a higher boost clock (3.47 GHz vs 3.00 GHz fixed). The Xeon’s higher base clock, larger L2 cache (12 MB total), and simpler architecture without Hyper-Threading appear to deliver better real-world Cinebench performance.

For users choosing between these two processors, the Xeon E5450 is the better pick for any workload that resembles Cinebench: rendering, 3D modeling, or compute tasks that scale with single-thread and multicore throughput. It also offers ECC memory support and a server/workstation market segment, making it suitable for reliability-focused builds. The Xeon carries a launch MSRP of $915, which is a data point, but the decision should rest on performance.

The Core i7-860S is not without merit. It has a shared 8 MB L3 cache, which the Xeon lacks, and its Hyper-Threading could help in workloads that are not represented in the Cinebench suite. It also has a higher boost clock for short bursts. However, the recorded data shows zero wins against the Xeon. If the workload is exclusively Cinebench-style, there is no reason to choose the i7-860S based on the measurements.

Both processors sit at the 20th percentile in the database, meaning they are in the same performance class overall. The Xeon’s average score of 756 is only 2.2% higher than the i7-860S’s 740. But the head-to-head deltas are larger, indicating that in direct comparison, the Xeon is consistently stronger. The i7-860S’s nearest rivals include the Intel Pentium G4400 and Intel Core i5-670, while the Xeon’s rivals include the Intel Core i5-4250U and Core i3-5020U, showing that both parts compete with similar-generation low-to-mid-range chips.

In summary, the Xeon E5450 is the winner across all five head-to-head tests, with margins between 9.4% and 10.2%. The Core i7-860S does not win a single test. For anyone prioritizing Cinebench performance, the Xeon E5450 is the clear choice. The i7-860S offers features like Hyper-Threading and L3 cache, but the benchmark data shows they do not overcome the Xeon’s clock and cache advantage. The verdict is straightforward: pick the Xeon E5450 for better rendering performance, and pick the Core i7-860S only if the specific platform or features (such as Socket 1156 or no ECC requirement) are mandatory, but expect lower Cinebench scores.