CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-920 and Intel Xeon X3450 are near-identical in raw compute output, with the i7-920 winning all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons by margins of 0.3% to 0.5%. The Xeon X3450 counters with a lower 95W TDP, ECC memory support, and a higher boost clock of 3.20 GHz versus 2.93 GHz, but the benchmark data shows these advantages do not translate into faster rendering scores. Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, and their average benchmark scores differ by only 3 points (840 vs 837), making this a contest defined by platform features rather than performance.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Core i7-920 wins every single benchmark in the head-to-head comparison. In Cinebench R15 multicore, it scores 246 against the Xeon X3450’s 245, a 0.4% lead. The R20 multicore test shows 1025 versus 1021, again a 0.4% margin. The R23 multicore result is 2442 versus 2431, the largest gap at 0.5%. Even the single-core tests favor the i7-920, with R20 single-core tying at 144 and R23 single-core edging ahead 344 to 343. The data indicates the i7-920 is consistently faster, but the deltas are so small that they fall within run-to-run noise for most workloads.

The Intel Xeon X3450 wins where benchmarks do not measure: platform efficiency and reliability features. Its 95W TDP is substantially lower than the i7-920’s 130W, which means lower cooling requirements and potentially lower system power draw. It supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the i7-920, making it the only choice for error-correcting memory configurations. Its boost clock reaches 3.20 GHz, which is 0.27 GHz higher than the i7-920’s 2.93 GHz, but the benchmark results show this clock advantage does not produce higher scores in the tested Cinebench workloads.

Architecture Differences

Both chips share the Nehalem architecture and are built on Intel’s 45 nm process node. The i7-920 uses the Bloomfield codename and fits the Intel Socket 1366, while the Xeon X3450 uses the Lynnfield codename and fits the Intel Socket 1156. This socket difference is fundamental: the i7-920 connects to a triple-channel memory bus, while the Xeon X3450 uses a dual-channel bus. The Xeon’s memory bandwidth is listed at 21.3 GB/s, but the i7-920’s bandwidth is not provided in the data.

The transistor counts differ slightly, with the Xeon X3450 containing 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die, compared to the i7-920’s 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. Cache configurations are identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Both support DDR3 memory and PCIe Gen 2, but the Xeon’s PCIe is specified as 16 lanes from the CPU only. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both have locked multipliers.

The market segmentation is clear: the i7-920 is a Desktop part, while the Xeon X3450 is aimed at Server/Workstation use. The Xeon’s ECC memory support aligns with this server positioning, as does its lower TDP for dense deployments. The i7-920 was released on 2008-11-16, nearly a year before the Xeon X3450’s 2009-09-07 launch. Both are end-of-life products.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-920 outperforms the Intel Xeon X3450 in every Cinebench test, from R15 multicore through R23 single-core. The largest margin is 0.5% in R23 multicore, which is negligible for real-world applications. Any user choosing between these two solely on rendering performance would see no meaningful difference.

The decision comes down to platform requirements. The Xeon X3450 is the only option for systems that need ECC memory, and its 95W TDP makes it more suitable for power-constrained or densely packed servers. The i7-920’s triple-channel memory bus and desktop socket 1366 platform may offer different expansion or memory capacity options, though the data does not specify those details. The Xeon also carries a launch MSRP of $241, which can be stated once as a reference point.

For a desktop build where maximum Cinebench scores matter, the i7-920 wins by a hair. For a server or workstation requiring ECC memory and lower power draw, the Xeon X3450 is the correct choice despite its slightly lower scores. Given the tiny performance deltas, the Xeon’s feature set makes it the more versatile part for professional environments.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon X3450 boosts to 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Core i7-920 boosts to 2.93 GHz. Despite this 0.27 GHz difference, the i7-920 still wins all benchmark comparisons.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: No. The Intel Xeon X3450 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Core i7-920 does not.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two?

A: The Intel Core i7-920 has a TDP of 130W, while the Intel Xeon X3450 has a TDP of 95W.

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both have exactly 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: What are the memory bus configurations?

A: The Intel Core i7-920 uses a triple-channel memory bus, while the Intel Xeon X3450 uses a dual-channel bus with a listed bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s.

Q: How do the average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Intel Core i7-920 has an average benchmark score of 840, and the Intel Xeon X3450 scores 837, a difference of 0.3% or less.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The Cinebench R23 multicore test provides the largest performance gap in the entire comparison. The Intel Core i7-920 scores 2442, while the Intel Xeon X3450 scores 2431, giving the i7-920 a 0.5% lead. This is the only test where the delta exceeds 0.4%, and it confirms that the i7-920’s lower boost clock does not hurt it in heavily threaded workloads.

The Cinebench R20 multicore test shows a similar pattern: 1025 for the i7-920 versus 1021 for the Xeon X3450, a 0.4% margin. The Cinebench R15 multicore result is 246 versus 245, also a 0.4% lead for the i7-920. These consistent margins across three different Cinebench versions suggest the i7-920 has a slight architectural or platform advantage, likely related to its triple-channel memory bus providing more bandwidth for the rendering engine.

Single-core results are even closer. The Cinebench R20 single-core test ties at 144 for both processors, with a 0% delta. The R23 single-core test gives the i7-920 a 344 to 343 win, a 0.3% margin. These near-identical single-core scores align with the shared Nehalem architecture and identical 2.67 GHz base clocks.

The overall benchmark picture is that the i7-920 wins all five head-to-head tests, but the average benchmark scores tell a slightly different story. The i7-920 averages 840, while the Xeon X3450 averages 837. The i7-920’s nearest rival is the Intel Xeon X5470 at 839 (0.1% higher), while the Xeon X3450’s nearest rival is the Intel Core i5-5200U at 838 (0.1% lower). Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, placing them in the lower-midrange of the overall performance distribution.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-920 | Intel Xeon X3450 |

|----------------|-------------------|------------------|

| Boost Clock | 2.93 GHz | 3.20 GHz |

| TDP | 130W | 95W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Codename | Bloomfield | Lynnfield |

| Generation | Core i7 (Bloomfield) | Xeon (Lynnfield) |

| Transistors | 731 million | 774 million |

| Die Size | 263 mm² | 296 mm² |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not specified | 21.3 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | No | Yes |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |

| Release Date | 2008-11-16 | 2009-09-07 |

| Launch MSRP | Not specified | $241 |

| Part Number | SLBCHSLBEJ | SLBLD |

The two processors share identical core counts (4), thread counts (8), base clocks (2.67 GHz), L1 cache (64 KB per core), L2 cache (256 KB per core), L3 cache (8 MB shared), process node (45 nm), foundry (Intel), memory type (DDR3), and lack of integrated graphics. The Xeon X3450 differentiates itself with ECC memory support, a higher boost clock, lower TDP, and a dual-channel memory bus. The i7-920 counters with a triple-channel bus and a desktop platform focus.