Intel Core i7-920 vs Intel Xeon X3460 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data presents a consistent picture across all five Cinebench tests: the Intel Xeon X3460 takes every single win. There is no benchmark in the head-to-head set where the Core i7-920 emerges ahead. The margins are narrow but uniform, ranging from 2.8% to 3.4% in favor of the Xeon.

In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the Xeon X3460 scores 253 against the Core i7-920's 246, a delta of 2.8%. That is a modest gap, but it repeats across every other test. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1057 versus 1025, a 3% advantage. The single-core R20 test shows 149 versus 144, which is a 3.4% lead, the largest relative margin in the entire comparison. Cinebench R23 multi-core records 2518 for the Xeon and 2442 for the Core i7, again a 3% difference. The R23 single-core test rounds out the sweep at 355 versus 344, a 3.1% lead.

What is notable here is the consistency. The Xeon does not win by a wide margin in any one workload; instead, it wins by roughly the same small amount everywhere. This suggests a fundamental clock advantage rather than an architectural edge in any specific instruction path. The delta percentages hover around 3% in multi-core tests and 3.1% to 3.4% in single-core tests. The single-core margins are slightly larger, which hints that the Xeon's boost clock advantage matters more when only one thread is active.

The average benchmark scores in the database confirm the direction. The Core i7-920 sits at an average score of 840, while the Xeon X3460 averages 866. That is a 3.1% difference in overall performance. The percentile rankings also favor the Xeon slightly: 23rd percentile versus 22nd percentile for the Core i7. Both are low-end performers by modern standards, but the Xeon is consistently a few points ahead.

Looking at the nearest rivals for each chip provides context. The Core i7-920's closest competitor is the Intel Xeon X5470 at an average score of 839, a delta of 0.1%. The AMD FX-8800P sits at 843, outperforming the Core i7 by 0.3%. The Xeon X3460's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-3540M at 867, a delta of 0.1% in the rival's favor. The Intel Atom C5315 scores 871, which is 0.6% above the Xeon. These rival comparisons show that both chips are clustered tightly with other older processors, and the difference between them is within the noise of those clusters.

Where Each One Wins

The data is unambiguous: the Xeon X3460 wins every benchmark category in the head-to-head set. There are no use cases where the Core i7-920 comes out ahead in the recorded measurements. However, the nature of the wins matters for practical interpretation.

In multi-threaded workloads, represented by the Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests, the Xeon leads by 2.8% to 3%. Both processors have 4 cores and 8 threads, so the difference is entirely due to clock behavior under load. The Xeon's base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.67 GHz for the Core i7 gives it a starting advantage, and its boost clock of 3.47 GHz versus 2.93 GHz extends that lead when thermal headroom allows.

In single-threaded workloads, the Xeon's advantage grows slightly. The R20 single-core test shows a 3.4% lead, and the R23 single-core test shows 3.1%. This is where the boost clock gap becomes most visible. A 0.54 GHz difference in maximum boost is significant for lightly threaded applications that cannot spread work across cores. The data implies that the Xeon is the better choice for any workload that depends on per-core speed, such as older games or lightly threaded productivity tools.

The Core i7-920's only areas of relative strength are not measured in benchmark scores. It has a 130 W TDP compared to the Xeon's 95 W, which means it draws more power for less performance. The Core i7 also uses triple-channel memory, while the Xeon uses dual-channel. Yet the benchmark results do not show any benefit from the wider memory bus in the Core i7. In every recorded test, the Xeon wins. The Core i7 simply has no benchmark category where it prevails.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Nehalem architecture and a 45 nm process node, but they come from different codenames and target different sockets. The Core i7-920 is a Bloomfield part on Intel Socket 1366, while the Xeon X3460 is a Lynnfield part on Intel Socket 1156. This is not a cosmetic difference; it affects memory channels, PCIe configuration, and physical compatibility.

The Core i7-920 uses triple-channel DDR3 memory, while the Xeon X3460 uses dual-channel DDR3. The Xeon lists a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while the Core i7 has no bandwidth figure in the database. Despite having fewer memory channels, the Xeon still outperforms the Core i7 in every benchmark. The data suggests that memory bandwidth is not the limiting factor in these Cinebench workloads.

The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the Core i7 does not. This is a meaningful feature for server and workstation use, as it enables error correction in memory. The Core i7 is classified as a Desktop part, while the Xeon is classified as Server/Workstation. That classification aligns with the feature set: the Xeon includes ECC and a lower TDP of 95 W, making it more suitable for always-on environments.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ. The Core i7-920 has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, while the Xeon X3460 has 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The Xeon is a larger, more complex chip despite having the same core and thread count. The additional transistors likely account for the ECC support and other server-oriented features.

Clock speeds are the most obvious differentiator. The Core i7-920 runs at 2.67 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost, while the Xeon X3460 runs at 2.80 GHz base and 3.47 GHz boost. The Xeon's boost clock is substantially higher, which explains its consistent lead in both single-core and multi-core tests. The cache hierarchy is identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

PCIe support differs. Both use Gen 2, but the Xeon specifies 16 lanes from the CPU only, while the Core i7 does not list a lane count in the database. The Xeon's memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s is the only explicit bandwidth figure available. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both are end-of-life products. The Core i7 released on November 16, 2008, while the Xeon released on September 7, 2009, roughly ten months later.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench tests?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 wins all three multi-core tests. It scores 253 versus 246 in R15, 1057 versus 1025 in R20, and 2518 versus 2442 in R23. The lead is consistent at around 3%.

Q: Is the single-core performance gap larger than the multi-core gap?

A: Yes. The single-core R20 test shows a 3.4% lead for the Xeon, and the R23 single-core test shows 3.1%. The multi-core margins are 2.8% to 3%. The single-core advantage is slightly more pronounced.

Q: Do both processors have the same core and thread configuration?

A: Yes. Both have 4 cores and 8 threads. Neither has a higher core count, so the performance difference is entirely due to clock speeds and other architectural factors.

Q: Does the Core i7-920 support ECC memory?

A: No. The database lists ECC memory as false for the Core i7-920. The Xeon X3460 supports ECC memory, which is a key differentiator for server and workstation use.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two chips?

A: The Core i7-920 has a 130 W TDP, while the Xeon X3460 has a 95 W TDP. The Xeon delivers higher performance while consuming less power according to the specifications.

Q: How do these chips compare to their nearest rivals?

A: The Core i7-920's average score of 840 is within 0.3% of the AMD FX-8800P's 843 and 0.1% of the Intel Xeon X5470's 839. The Xeon X3460's average score of 866 is 0.1% below the Intel Core i7-3540M's 867 and 0.6% below the Intel Atom C5315's 871.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear recommendation for the Intel Xeon X3460 in every benchmark scenario recorded. It wins all five head-to-head tests, has a higher average benchmark score of 866 versus 840, and sits at a slightly better percentile ranking of 23 versus 22. The margins are small, but they are consistent and never favor the Core i7-920.

For users who prioritize single-threaded performance, the Xeon's 3.47 GHz boost clock gives it a measurable edge. The R20 single-core test shows a 3.4% lead, and the R23 single-core test shows 3.1%. This makes the Xeon the better choice for older software that cannot utilize multiple threads effectively.

For multi-threaded workloads, the Xeon also wins, but by a slightly smaller margin. The R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests all show roughly 3% leads. With identical core and thread counts, the Xeon's higher base clock of 2.80 GHz versus 2.67 GHz provides the foundation for this advantage.

The Xeon also offers ECC memory support and a lower TDP of 95 W, making it more suitable for server environments where reliability and power efficiency matter. The Core i7-920 has triple-channel memory, but the benchmark data shows no performance benefit from that configuration. The Xeon's dual-channel memory with 21.3 GB/s bandwidth is sufficient to outperform the Core i7 in every recorded test.

The Core i7-920 is not without merit. It shares the same Nehalem architecture, has the same cache hierarchy, and was designed for the desktop segment. But the recorded data shows no scenario where it wins. The Xeon X3460 is the superior processor in this comparison, and the only reason to choose the Core i7 would be socket compatibility with an existing Intel Socket 1366 motherboard. The database does not measure motherboard availability, so that decision falls outside the benchmark results.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Core i7-920 | Intel Xeon X3460 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.67 GHz | 2.80 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.93 GHz | 3.47 GHz |

| TDP | 130 W | 95 W |

| 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 listed | 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 | None listed | $316 |

| Part Number | SLBCHSLBEJ | SLBJK |