CPU Comparison
Intel Core i7-950
Xeon W3570
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Core i7-950 vs Intel Xeon W3570
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark data presents an unusually tight contest between the Intel Core i7-950 and the Intel Xeon W3570. Across the five Cinebench workloads, the Core i7-950 claims victory in all five, but the margins are razor-thin. In the Cinebench R15 multicore test, the i7-950 scores 280 against the W3570's 279, a delta of just 0.4%. That is the largest performance gap recorded between the two processors in any test. The R20 multicore run shows a similar pattern: 1167 for the i7-950 versus 1165 for the W3570, a 0.2% edge. The R23 multicore result narrows further, with the i7-950 at 2780 and the W3570 at 2776, a 0.1% difference. These are margins that would be imperceptible in real-world use, but they do establish a consistent trend.
Single-core results are effectively identical. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both processors post a score of 164, with a delta of 0%. The R23 single-core test repeats this exact outcome, with both scoring 392. This parity suggests that the architectural core design, clock-for-clock, delivers nearly identical instruction throughput. The average benchmark score reinforces the overall picture: the i7-950 averages 957 across all recorded tests, while the W3570 averages 955. The i7-950's nearest rival list includes the W3570 at a delta of 0.1%, and the W3570's list includes the i7-950 at a delta of -0.2%, confirming that these two processors are statistical peers in the benchmark database.
The overall percentile rankings place both in the lower quartile of all CPUs, with the i7-950 at the 26th percentile and the W3570 at the 25th. In context, the i7-950's nearest rivals include the AMD Opteron 4386 at an identical average score of 957, the AMD Athlon X4 870K at 956 (0.1% behind), and the AMD Ryzen Embedded R1600 at 958 (0.1% ahead). The W3570, meanwhile, sits alongside the Intel Celeron N5105 at 955, the Intel Xeon W3550 at 956, and again the Athlon X4 870K at 956. What the data shows is a cluster of processors from the same era, all occupying a narrow performance band. The i7-950's 5-0 win record over the W3570 is technically decisive, but the largest winning margin of 0.4% is smaller than the run-to-run variance many benchmark suites exhibit.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are built on the same foundational architecture. The Core i7-950 and Xeon W3570 both use the Nehalem architecture, specifically the Bloomfield codename, fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process at Intel's own foundry. Each die contains 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² area. The core configuration is identical: 4 physical cores with 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, a 64 KB L1 cache per core, a 256 KB L2 cache per core, and an 8 MB shared L3 cache. Neither chip has integrated graphics, and both use a Gen 2 PCIe interface with triple-channel DDR3 memory support.
The most significant architectural difference is memory support for error correction. The Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory, while the Core i7-950 does not. This is a functional distinction derived from their market positioning rather than a change in the silicon itself. Both parts share the same socket, Intel Socket 1366, and the same 130 W TDP. The clock speeds differ slightly: the i7-950 has a base clock of 3.07 GHz and a boost clock of 3.33 GHz, while the W3570 runs at a 3.20 GHz base and 3.47 GHz boost. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is constrained by the motherboard and BIOS capabilities rather than the chip itself.
The release dates place the Xeon first: March 29, 2009 for the W3570, and June 1, 2009 for the i7-950. The part numbers differ as well, with the i7-950 carrying the SLBEN marking and the W3570 using SLBES. The generation labels in the benchmark database list the i7-950 as "Core i7 (Bloomfield)" and the W3570 as "Xeon (Bloomfield)," which emphasizes that the two are siblings from the same design family, differentiated primarily by target market and validation criteria. Both are end-of-life products now. The process node, transistor count, die size, and cache hierarchy are indistinguishable between the two.
FAQ
Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core workloads?
A: The Core i7-950 wins all three multi-core tests, but by margins of 0.4%, 0.2%, and 0.1% in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 respectively. The i7-950 scores 280, 1167, and 2780 versus the W3570's 279, 1165, and 2776.
Q: Is there any difference in single-core performance?
A: No measurable difference. Both chips score exactly 164 in Cinebench R20 single-core and exactly 392 in Cinebench R23 single-core, with a 0% delta in both tests.
Q: Do these processors support ECC memory?
A: Only the Xeon W3570 supports ECC memory. The Core i7-950 does not have ECC support. This is the only major functional feature that separates the two in the memory subsystem.
Q: How do these chips compare to their closest rivals?
A: The i7-950 has an average benchmark score of 957, matching the AMD Opteron 4386 exactly. The W3570 averages 955, which ties the Intel Celeron N5105. Both are within 0.1-0.2% of the AMD Athlon X4 870K and the Intel Xeon W3550.
Q: What is the clock speed difference between the two?
A: The Xeon W3570 has a higher base clock at 3.20 GHz versus 3.07 GHz, and a higher boost clock at 3.47 GHz versus 3.33 GHz. Despite this clock advantage, the benchmark scores are nearly identical.
Q: Are these processors unlocked for overclocking?
A: No. Both the Core i7-950 and the Xeon W3570 have locked multipliers, meaning overclocking potential is limited to base clock adjustments on compatible Intel Socket 1366 motherboards.
Specification Differences
| Specification | Intel Core i7-950 | Intel Xeon W3570 |
|---|---|---|
| Base Clock | 3.07 GHz | 3.20 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 3.33 GHz | 3.47 GHz |
| ECC Memory | No | Yes |
| Market Segment | Desktop | Server/Workstation |
| Release Date | 2009-06-01 | 2009-03-29 |
| Part Number | SLBEN | SLBES |
| Generation Label | Core i7 (Bloomfield) | Xeon (Bloomfield) |
| Average Benchmark Score | 957 | 955 |
| Percentile vs All CPUs | 26 | 25 |
All other specification fields are identical: 4 cores, 8 threads, 130 W TDP, Intel Socket 1366, Nehalem architecture, Bloomfield codename, 45 nm process, 731 million transistors, 263 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, 8 MB shared L3, DDR3 memory support, triple-channel memory bus, Gen 2 PCIe, no integrated graphics, and locked multipliers. Both are end-of-life products from Intel.
Where Each One Wins
The Core i7-950 wins in every recorded benchmark category, making it the default choice for pure performance metrics in this database. Its wins are consistent across Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 in both single-core and multi-core tests. The margins are small, but they are uniform. For a user optimizing for any Cinebench-style rendering workload, the i7-950 holds a nominal advantage. Its 26th percentile ranking versus the W3570's 25th also gives it a slight edge in overall standing among all CPUs. The i7-950 is positioned for desktop use, which means it pairs naturally with consumer platforms and hardware.
The Xeon W3570 wins in the category of memory reliability and platform robustness. Its ECC memory support is a genuine functional advantage for workstations handling critical data or long-running compute jobs where a single-bit error could corrupt results. The W3570's server/workstation market segment implies a validation and support path aimed at professional environments, even though the underlying silicon is nearly identical to the i7-950. Its higher base and boost clocks, 3.20 GHz and 3.47 GHz versus 3.07 GHz and 3.33 GHz, do not translate into benchmark wins, but they do provide a theoretical clock-rate advantage in workloads not captured by the Cinebench suite. The W3570 also launched earlier, in March 2009 versus June 2009, which may matter for historical platform adoption timelines.
In practical terms, the data suggests that the two processors are interchangeable for most workloads. The i7-950's 5-0 win record is a statistical artifact of extremely close scores. The real differentiator is ECC memory support, which only the W3570 offers. If the workload requires error-correcting memory for data integrity, the W3570 is the only option. If the workload is purely about raw Cinebench scores, the i7-950 holds a marginal but consistent lead. Both chips occupy the same performance tier, as evidenced by their average scores of 957 and 955 and their shared position in the lower quartile of all CPUs. The choice between them should be driven by platform requirements and memory needs, not by benchmark deltas that never exceed 0.4%.