CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-920 and Intel Xeon X5470 are exceptionally close performers, with the data showing a virtual tie across every benchmark recorded. The Core i7-920 edges out a win in four of five tests, but the margins are so slim, never exceeding 0.4%, that they are statistically insignificant for real-world workloads. The Xeon X5470 counters with a higher base clock and server-grade features, but the Core i7-920’s Hyper-Threading and modern memory architecture make it the more versatile choice. Below, the data breaks down exactly where each chip holds an advantage.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Core i7-920 has an average benchmark score of 840, while the Intel Xeon X5470 scores 839. The delta between them is 0.1%, placing the Core i7-920 fractionally ahead.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in single-core performance?

A: Both CPUs produce identical single-core scores: 144 in Cinebench R20 and 344 in Cinebench R23. The head-to-head data records a 0% delta for both tests, indicating no measurable difference in single-threaded speed.

Q: Does the Xeon X5470 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon X5470 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-920 does not, as its ECC memory field is marked false.

Q: What is the core and thread configuration for each processor?

A: The Core i7-920 has 4 cores and 8 threads due to Hyper-Threading. The Xeon X5470 has 4 cores and 4 threads, lacking Hyper-Threading.

Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?

A: The Xeon X5470 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz, which is significantly higher than the Core i7-920’s 2.67 GHz base clock. The Core i7-920 does have a boost clock of 2.93 GHz, but the Xeon has no boost capability.

Q: How do the two CPUs' cache configurations differ?

A: The Core i7-920 has 64 KB L1 and 256 KB L2 per core, plus 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon X5470 also has 64 KB L1 per core but provides 6 MB L2 per die, with no L3 cache.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data is remarkably one-sided in terms of win counts, the Core i7-920 wins all five head-to-head tests, but the actual scores reveal a near-tie. The Core i7-920’s largest victory comes in Cinebench R15 multicore, where it scores 246 against the Xeon’s 245, a 0.4% advantage. In Cinebench R20 multicore, the Core i7-920 scores 1025 versus 1024, a 0.1% lead. The R23 multicore test shows the same pattern: 2442 against 2440, again a 0.1% difference.

The Xeon X5470’s wins are not in benchmark scores but in specifications. Its 3.33 GHz base clock is 0.66 GHz higher than the Core i7-920’s 2.67 GHz base, which could provide an edge in lightly threaded or latency-sensitive tasks that do not scale with additional threads. The Xeon also has a lower TDP of 120 watts versus the Core i7-920’s 130 watts, making it more power-efficient on paper. For server workloads requiring ECC memory, the Xeon is the only option of the two, as the Core i7-920 lacks ECC support.

For multi-threaded rendering and content creation, the Core i7-920’s extra threads (8 vs 4) give it the theoretical edge, even if the measured deltas are tiny. The benchmark results indicate the Core i7-920 wins every multicore test, suggesting its Hyper-Threading does provide a small but consistent benefit in parallel workloads.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent fundamentally different Intel architectures. The Core i7-920 is built on the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Bloomfield, while the Xeon X5470 uses the older Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown. Both are manufactured on a 45 nm process node, but the transistor counts differ: the Core i7-920 has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, while the Xeon X5470 packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die design of 2x 107 mm².

Cache hierarchy is a major architectural split. The Core i7-920 uses a three-level cache system: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The Xeon X5470 has a two-level design with 64 KB L1 per core and 6 MB L2 per die, with no L3 cache at all. The Xeon’s lack of L3 cache is offset by its higher clock speed, but the Core i7-920’s shared L3 provides better data sharing between cores.

Memory support diverges significantly. The Core i7-920 supports DDR3 memory via a triple-channel memory bus, while the Xeon X5470 supports both DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, using a dual-channel memory bus. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, a feature absent on the Core i7-920. Both processors use PCIe Gen 2, and neither has integrated graphics.

The market segments differ: the Core i7-920 is a desktop part, while the Xeon X5470 targets server and workstation use. This explains the Xeon’s ECC support and its older socket (Intel Socket 771) versus the Core i7-920’s Intel Socket 1366. The Xeon’s release date of September 2008 predates the Core i7-920’s November 2008 launch by two months.

Specification Differences

The specification sheets highlight several clear distinctions. The Core i7-920 has 8 threads versus the Xeon X5470’s 4 threads, a direct result of the Core i7-920’s Hyper-Threading support. Base clocks differ substantially: the Xeon runs at 3.33 GHz, while the Core i7-920 has a base of 2.67 GHz and a boost of 2.93 GHz. The Xeon has no boost clock.

TDP ratings show the Xeon as the more efficient chip at 120 watts, compared to the Core i7-920’s 130 watts. Socket compatibility is entirely different, the Core i7-920 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the Xeon uses Intel Socket 771. Memory channels also differ: the Core i7-920 supports triple-channel DDR3, while the Xeon supports dual-channel DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard.

The Xeon’s cache structure is notably different, with 6 MB per die for the L2 cache and no L3, versus the Core i7-920’s 256 KB per core L2 and 8 MB shared L3. The Xeon supports ECC memory; the Core i7-920 does not. The launch MSRP of the Xeon X5470 was $1386, a figure that underscores its server positioning, though no launch MSRP is listed for the Core i7-920.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results are almost perfectly matched, making the head-to-head analysis a study in microscopic margins. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the Core i7-920 scores 246, beating the Xeon’s 245 by 0.4%, the largest delta in any test. Cinebench R20 multicore shows the Core i7-920 at 1025 versus 1024, a 0.1% edge. The R23 multicore test repeats this pattern: 2442 for the Core i7-920, 2440 for the Xeon, again a 0.1% difference.

Single-core results are dead even. Both processors score 144 in Cinebench R20 single-core and 344 in Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 0% delta in both cases. This suggests that despite the Xeon’s higher base clock, the Core i7-920’s architectural efficiency (Nehalem vs Core 2) fully compensates in single-threaded workloads.

The overall average benchmark score confirms the tie: the Core i7-920 averages 840, and the Xeon X5470 averages 839, a 0.1% difference. Both CPUs sit at the 22nd percentile among all CPUs, meaning they outperform roughly a fifth of all processors tested. The nearest rival data places the Core i5-3380M and Core i5-5200U within 0.3% of both chips, while the AMD FX-8800P trails the Core i7-920 by 0.3% and the Xeon X3450 trails the Xeon X5470 by 0.3%.

The Core i7-920 wins 5 head-to-head tests, while the Xeon wins 0. However, the largest winning margin is 0.4%, which falls well within normal run-to-run variance for benchmarks. The data does not support a decisive performance victory for either chip.

The Verdict

The benchmark data indicates that the Intel Core i7-920 and Intel Xeon X5470 are effectively identical in raw performance. The Core i7-920 wins every head-to-head test, but with deltas of 0.0% to 0.4%, the difference is negligible for any practical application. Both CPUs sit at the 22nd percentile, and their average scores differ by just 1 point out of 840.

For desktop users, the Core i7-920 is the clear pick. Its 8 threads provide a theoretical advantage in multi-threaded software, and the data confirms this with wins in all multicore benchmarks. The triple-channel DDR3 memory support and shared 8 MB L3 cache offer a more modern memory subsystem. The Core i7-920’s Nehalem architecture is newer than the Xeon’s Core 2 design, and its boost clock of 2.93 GHz helps close the gap against the Xeon’s higher base clock.

For server or workstation applications, the Xeon X5470 is the only choice when ECC memory is required, as the Core i7-920 lacks this feature. The Xeon’s lower TDP (120 watts vs 130 watts) and higher base clock (3.33 GHz) are also points in its favor. The Xeon’s support for both DDR2 and DDR3 memory, depending on the motherboard, offers flexibility for legacy systems. Its launch MSRP was $1386, reflecting its enterprise positioning.

The verdict is simple: choose the Core i7-920 for desktop performance and multi-threading, and the Xeon X5470 for server environments demanding ECC memory and lower power draw. In pure benchmark terms, neither chip has a meaningful edge, the data shows a dead heat.