CPU Comparison

The Intel Core i7-960 and Intel Xeon W5590 are near-identical performers, separated by margins of less than one percent in every recorded benchmark, but they target different markets. The data shows the i7-960 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, yet the Xeon W5590 counters with server-oriented features like ECC memory support and a higher stock clock. For raw application speed, the desktop part edges ahead; for reliability-focused workstation builds, the Xeon part justifies its existence despite slightly lower scores.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark results are remarkably one-sided in favor of the Intel Core i7-960. Across all five Cinebench tests, R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, R23 multicore, and R23 singlecore, the desktop chip records the higher score. The margins are small but consistent, ranging from 0.6% to 0.7%. The largest gap appears in Cinebench R15 multicore, where the i7-960 scores 290 against the W5590’s 288, a 0.7% advantage. Single-core performance tells the same story: a 170 vs. 169 result in R20 singlecore, and 407 vs. 404 in R23 singlecore.

The Xeon W5590 does not win a single benchmark in this dataset. However, its wins are not measured in raw speed but in platform capability. The W5590 supports ECC memory, a feature entirely absent from the i7-960. For users running long-duration computations, database servers, or virtualized workloads where memory corruption is a critical risk, ECC support can be more valuable than a 0.6% performance delta. The Xeon also carries a higher base clock (3.33 GHz vs. 3.20 GHz) and boost clock (3.60 GHz vs. 3.47 GHz), yet the benchmark data shows this clock advantage does not translate into a performance win in these tests.

In practical terms, the i7-960 is the pick for desktop users chasing the last few points in Cinebench, while the W5590 is the pick for systems where data integrity outranks benchmark scores. Both CPUs sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are firmly in the same performance tier.

FAQ

Q: Which CPU has the higher benchmark score in multi-core tests?

A: The Intel Core i7-960 wins every multi-core test. In Cinebench R15 multicore it scores 290 vs. 288 (0.7% ahead), in R20 multicore it scores 1211 vs. 1204 (0.6% ahead), and in R23 multicore it scores 2885 vs. 2867 (0.6% ahead).

Q: Does the Xeon W5590’s higher clock speed give it a performance advantage?

A: No. The Xeon W5590 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, both higher than the i7-960’s 3.20 GHz and 3.47 GHz. Despite this, the i7-960 wins all five Cinebench tests listed in the head-to-head data.

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W5590 supports ECC memory. The Intel Core i7-960 does not list ECC support in its specifications.

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

A: The i7-960 leads by 0.6% in Cinebench R20 singlecore (170 vs. 169) and by 0.7% in Cinebench R23 singlecore (407 vs. 404).

Q: Are these CPUs similar in average benchmark performance?

A: Yes. The i7-960 has an average benchmark score of 993, while the W5590 has an average score of 986. Both sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs.

Q: What is the launch MSRP of the Xeon W5590?

A: The launch MSRP of the Intel Xeon W5590 is $1600. The Core i7-960 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head table shows a clean sweep for the Intel Core i7-960, but the margins are so thin they fall within run-to-run variance. The largest delta is 0.7%, recorded in two tests: Cinebench R15 multicore (290 vs. 288) and Cinebench R23 singlecore (407 vs. 404). The remaining three tests, R20 multicore, R20 singlecore, and R23 multicore, all show the i7-960 ahead by 0.6%.

Let’s examine the multi-core results closely. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the i7-960’s 290-point score beats the W5590’s 288 by two points. That is a 0.7% advantage, which is the largest proportional gap in the entire comparison. In R20 multicore, the margin expands to seven points (1211 vs. 1204), but proportionally it shrinks to 0.6%. In R23 multicore, the gap is 18 points (2885 vs. 2867), again 0.6%. The absolute point differences grow with each newer test version, but the relative performance gap remains constant.

Single-core results follow the same pattern. Cinebench R20 singlecore shows the i7-960 at 170 and the W5590 at 169, a one-point difference (0.6%). Cinebench R23 singlecore shows 407 vs. 404, a three-point difference (0.7%). These are the smallest absolute deltas in the dataset, yet they consistently favor the desktop part.

The Xeon W5590’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-875K (deltaPct 0.2% ahead) and the Intel Core i3-4130T (deltaPct 0.2% ahead), while the i7-960’s nearest rivals include the Intel Core i7-965 and AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, both with a 0% delta. This places the two CPUs in the same competitive bracket, trading blows with chips from the same era.

Specification Differences

The core configuration is identical: both chips have 4 cores, 8 threads, and a 130W TDP. The socket is the same (Intel Socket 1366), and both use DDR3 memory with triple-channel support. The cache hierarchy matches exactly: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3.

The first difference is clock speed. The Xeon W5590 runs at 3.33 GHz base and 3.60 GHz boost, while the i7-960 runs at 3.20 GHz base and 3.47 GHz boost. Despite this, the i7-960 wins all benchmarks, indicating the clock difference is negligible in real workloads.

Memory bandwidth is another differentiator. The Xeon W5590 lists 32.0 GB/s of memory bandwidth, while the i7-960 has no such figure in its specifications. More importantly, the Xeon supports ECC memory, while the i7-960 does not. This is the single most functional difference between the two parts.

Market segment separates them: the i7-960 is a Desktop processor, while the W5590 is a Server/Workstation part. Release dates also differ, the i7-960 was released on 2009-10-19, while the W5590 came earlier on 2009-08-08. The part numbers are distinct (SLBEU for the i7, SLBGE for the Xeon), and the Xeon has a launch MSRP of $1600.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel’s Nehalem architecture, but they come from different codenames. The i7-960 is from the Bloomfield family, while the W5590 uses the Gainestown codename. Both are manufactured on a 45 nm process node at Intel’s foundry, with 731 million transistors and a die size of 263 mm².

The cache structure is identical: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Both support PCIe Gen 2 and neither has integrated graphics. The memory controller supports DDR3 in triple-channel mode for both, but the Xeon adds ECC support and a rated memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s.

The Xeon W5590 belongs to the Xeon (Gainestown) generation, while the i7-960 belongs to the Core i7 (Bloomfield) generation. This generation split explains the market positioning, the Xeon is designed for server reliability with ECC, while the Core i7 targets desktop performance. Neither chip has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking headroom is limited on both.

The production status for both is end-of-life, reflecting their age. The Xeon’s earlier release date (2009-08-08) suggests it was designed for server platforms that typically require longer validation cycles. The i7-960’s later release (2009-10-19) came after the desktop Nehalem platform had matured.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Core i7-960 outperforms the Intel Xeon W5590 in every recorded Cinebench test, albeit by margins of 0.6% to 0.7%. If raw performance is the only criterion, the i7-960 is the better choice. The desktop chip also carries a lower launch price point, though no MSRP is listed for the i7-960, the W5590’s $1600 launch MSRP is a notable premium for a part that scores lower in every test.

However, performance is not the only factor. The Xeon W5590 supports ECC memory, which the i7-960 does not. For users running memory-intensive server or workstation workloads where a single-bit error can corrupt data or crash a system, ECC support is a decisive feature. The Xeon also lists a memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, a specification absent from the i7-960’s data sheet.

The average benchmark scores reflect the closeness: 993 for the i7-960 vs. 986 for the W5590. Both sit at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, and both have nearest rivals within a 0.3% delta. This is not a comparison of a clear winner and loser, it is a comparison of two nearly identical chips differentiated by platform features.

For desktop users building a high-end 2009-era system and prioritizing Cinebench scores, the i7-960 is the correct pick. It wins all five head-to-head tests and offers the same core count, cache, and TDP. For workstation or server builders who need ECC memory and can tolerate a 0.6% performance deficit, the Xeon W5590 is the data-supported choice. The Xeon’s higher clocks do not help it in benchmarks, so its value lies entirely in its reliability features, not its speed.