Intel Pentium Silver J5040 vs Intel Xeon X5482 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5482 and Intel Pentium Silver J5040 represent two very different eras of Intel silicon, yet both are quad-core, four-thread parts that end up in a similar performance bracket. The Xeon X5482 is a 2007-era server/workstation processor built on the Core 2 architecture, while the J5040 is a 2019 mobile part based on the Goldmont Plus architecture. Despite the Xeon’s enterprise pedigree and much higher power envelope, benchmark data shows the Pentium Silver is consistently faster across every tested workload, though the Xeon does have some structural advantages in memory and platform features.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are unambiguous: the Intel Pentium Silver J5040 wins all five benchmark comparisons. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the J5040 scores 276 against the Xeon X5482’s 235, a delta of -14.9% from the Xeon’s perspective. That means the Pentium Silver is roughly 17% faster in this test. The gap narrows slightly in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the J5040 posts 1150 versus 983, a -14.5% delta. The same -14.5% delta appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with scores of 2739 and 2341 respectively.

Single-core performance tells a similar story. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the J5040 scores 162 against the Xeon’s 138, a -14.8% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the J5040’s 386 beats the Xeon’s 330, again a -14.5% delta. Across all five tests, the deltas are remarkably consistent, hovering between -14.5% and -14.9%. This consistency suggests the J5040’s architectural efficiency advantage is uniform across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads, not a quirk of any particular benchmark.

The average benchmark score further confirms the parity in overall positioning. The Xeon X5482 has an average benchmark score of 805, while the J5040 sits at 801. These are nearly identical, and the nearest rivals for both parts are the same processors. The Xeon’s nearest rival is the AMD Ryzen 3 2200U with a delta of 0%, while the J5040’s nearest rival is the AMD A10-7700K and the Intel Xeon E5530, both at 0% delta. Both chips land in the 21st and 22nd percentiles of all CPUs, respectively, meaning they are both entry-level performers by modern standards. The Xeon’s percentile is 22, the J5040’s is 21, a negligible difference.

FAQ

Q: Which processor is faster in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Pentium Silver J5040 scores 2739 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, compared to the Intel Xeon X5482’s 2341. This represents a -14.5% delta from the Xeon’s perspective, meaning the J5040 is about 17% faster.

Q: How do the single-core scores compare?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, the J5040 scores 386 while the Xeon X5482 scores 330, a -14.5% delta. The J5040 also leads in Cinebench R20 single-core with 162 versus 138, a -14.8% delta.

Q: Are these processors similar in overall performance?

A: Their average benchmark scores are nearly identical: the Xeon X5482 averages 805 and the J5040 averages 801. The Xeon ranks in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, while the J5040 ranks in the 21st percentile.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon X5482 and the Intel Pentium Silver J5040 have 4 cores and 4 threads. Neither supports simultaneous multithreading.

Q: What is the biggest performance difference between them?

A: The largest delta is in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the J5040 leads by -14.9%. The smallest delta is also in multi-core tests, with -14.5% appearing in Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz. The Intel Pentium Silver J5040 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz, but it has a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

Architecture Differences

The two processors are built on fundamentally different architectures separated by more than a decade of Intel design evolution. The Xeon X5482 uses the Core 2 architecture with the codename Harpertown, fabricated on a 45 nm process node at Intel’s foundry. It contains 820 million transistors spread across two dies, each measuring 107 mm², for a total die size of 2x 107 mm². The J5040, in contrast, uses the Goldmont Plus architecture with the codename Gemini Lake, fabricated on a 14 nm process node. Its die size is 93 mm², and the transistor count is not listed in the data.

Cache organization differs significantly between the two. The Xeon X5482 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core and 6 MB of L2 cache per die, which means a total of 12 MB of L2 across both dies. The J5040 has a smaller 56 KB L1 cache per core but a shared 4 MB L2 cache. Neither processor has any L3 cache. These cache structures reflect the different design philosophies: the Xeon’s per-die L2 was designed for multi-socket server workloads, while the J5040’s shared L2 is optimized for low-power mobile efficiency.

The Xeon X5482 is a server/workstation part with a 150 TDP and an Intel Socket 771. The J5040 is a mobile part with a dramatically lower 10 TDP and an Intel BGA 1090 socket. The Xeon supports ECC memory, while the J5040 does not. The Xeon’s PCIe is Gen 2, and the J5040 also uses Gen 2, but the J5040 has only 6 lanes (CPU only). The Xeon has no integrated graphics, while the J5040 includes UHD Graphics 605.

Specification Differences

The specification tables reveal several key differences. The base clock of the Xeon X5482 is 3.20 GHz, while the J5040 has a base clock of 2000.00 MHz but adds a boost clock of 3.20 GHz; the Xeon has no boost clock listed. The TDP difference is massive: 150 watts for the Xeon versus 10 watts for the J5040. The Xeon uses an Intel Socket 771, while the J5040 uses Intel BGA 1090.

Memory support is another major divergence. The Xeon supports DDR2 and DDR3, depending on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus. The J5040 supports DDR4 with a dual-channel bus and has a listed memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s; the Xeon’s memory bandwidth is not listed. ECC memory is supported on the Xeon but not on the J5040. The Xeon’s market segment is Server/Workstation, while the J5040 is classified as Mobile. The Xeon has no integrated graphics, whereas the J5040 includes UHD Graphics 605.

The release dates are separated by 12 years: the Xeon launched on 2007-11-10, and the J5040 on 2019-11-03. Both are end-of-life. The launch MSRP for the Xeon X5482 is $1279, while the J5040’s is $161. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SLANZSLBBG for the Xeon and SRFDB for the J5040.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is decisive: the Intel Pentium Silver J5040 outperforms the Intel Xeon X5482 in every single test. The J5040 wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with deltas ranging from -14.5% to -14.9%. This is a consistent, across-the-board victory in both single-core and multi-core workloads. The J5040’s Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 2739 versus the Xeon’s 2341 shows a clear advantage, and its single-core score of 386 versus 330 is equally convincing.

However, the Xeon X5482 is not without its own merits. It supports ECC memory, which the J5040 does not, and it offers DDR2/DDR3 memory support versus the J5040’s DDR4-only support. The Xeon also has a higher base clock of 3.20 GHz, though the J5040 matches that with its boost clock. The Xeon’s server/workstation pedigree means it was designed for platforms requiring ECC and multi-socket configurations, even if its raw performance is lower.

The choice between these two depends entirely on the use case. For anyone looking at raw Cinebench performance, the J5040 is the clear winner, delivering better scores while consuming 140 fewer watts. The J5040’s 10 TDP makes it suitable for fanless or ultra-low-power designs, whereas the Xeon’s 150 TDP requires serious cooling. The J5040 also brings integrated UHD Graphics 605, which the Xeon lacks entirely.

For those requiring ECC memory or legacy DDR2/DDR3 support, the Xeon X5482 is the only option, despite its lower benchmark scores and higher power draw. The Xeon’s average benchmark score of 805 is actually slightly higher than the J5040’s 801, and it ranks in the 22nd percentile versus the J5040’s 21st, so the overall performance difference is marginal in the broader context. But in direct head-to-head comparisons, the J5040 is faster across the board. The data shows that a 2019 mobile processor can comfortably outrun a 2007 server chip in modern rendering workloads, evidence of architectural efficiency gains over the intervening years.