Intel Processor N150 vs Intel Xeon E5620 Comparison

The Intel Xeon E5620 and Intel Processor N150 occupy nearly the same position in the aggregate benchmark standings—both sit at the 28th percentile of all CPUs—yet their performance profiles are radically different. The Xeon E5620, a server part from 2010, and the N150, a mobile processor from 2024, deliver nearly identical average benchmark scores (1029 vs. 1025), but they achieve this parity through entirely different means. The head-to-head data reveals a split: the N150 dominates in single-threaded work and the older Cinebench R15 multi-threaded test, while the Xeon E5620 pulls ahead in the more demanding Cinebench R23 multi-threaded workload.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The most decisive victory belongs to the Intel Processor N150 in the Cinebench R23 single-core test. The N150 scores 935, while the Xeon E5620 manages only 422. This is a 54.9% advantage for the N150, and it reflects the fundamental generational gap in per-core efficiency. The N150’s single-thread performance is more than double that of the Xeon, which is a direct result of its much higher boost clock and newer architecture.

In the Cinebench R15 multi-core test, the N150 also wins, scoring 422.5 against the Xeon’s 301. That is a 28.8% margin in favor of the N150. This is notable because the Xeon has 8 threads to the N150’s 4, yet the N150 still outperforms it in this older benchmark. The N150’s per-core strength overcomes its thread-count disadvantage in this workload.

However, the Xeon E5620 strikes back in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test. Here, the Xeon scores 2989, compared to the N150’s 2590.5, giving the Xeon a 15.4% lead. This is the most modern and demanding benchmark in the comparison, and it shows that the Xeon’s 8 threads provide a meaningful advantage when all cores are fully loaded over a sustained period. The Xeon’s 12 MB of shared L3 cache likely helps it maintain performance in this longer workload, whereas the N150’s 6 MB cache may become a bottleneck.

The overall win count favors the N150, which takes 2 out of 3 head-to-head benchmarks. Yet the average benchmark scores tell a different story: the Xeon’s average is 1029, and the N150’s is 1025, a negligible 0.4% difference. This suggests that the benchmarks not included in the head-to-head (such as Cinebench R20) balance out the extremes. The Xeon’s nearest rival, the AMD Ryzen Embedded V1202B, scores 1027 (0.2% higher), while the N150’s closest competitor, the AMD Phenom II X6 1075T, scores 1024 (0.1% lower). Both processors are firmly in the same performance tier, but they reach it through different architectural strategies.

Architecture Differences

The Xeon E5620 is built on the Westmere architecture, specifically the Westmere-EP codename, using a 32 nm process node. It is a server and workstation part designed for Intel Socket 1366. The N150, in contrast, uses the Twin Lake architecture (a refinement of Alder Lake-N) on a 10 nm node, and it is a mobile processor on Intel BGA 1264. The process node difference is significant: 32 nm versus 10 nm represents a major jump in transistor density and power efficiency.

The core configurations differ fundamentally. The Xeon has 4 cores and 8 threads, relying on Hyper-Threading to double its thread count. The N150 has 4 cores and 4 threads, with no Hyper-Threading. This means the Xeon can process twice as many threads simultaneously, which explains its win in the Cinebench R23 multi-core test. However, the N150 compensates with a dramatically higher boost clock: 3.60 GHz versus the Xeon’s 2.67 GHz. The base clocks are also telling—the N150 lists a base clock of 0.10 GHz, which suggests it is designed to idle extremely low and burst up to 3.60 GHz, while the Xeon has a more traditional base clock of 2.40 GHz.

Cache hierarchies are also divergent. The Xeon uses 64 KB of L1 and 256 KB of L2 per core, with a large 12 MB shared L3 cache. The N150 uses 96 KB of L1 per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The Xeon’s larger L3 cache is a holdover from its server heritage, while the N150’s smaller but faster cache layout is optimized for mobile efficiency.

Memory support is another clear split. The Xeon supports DDR3 in a triple-channel configuration, with ECC memory support. The N150 supports DDR4, DDR5, and LPDDR5, but only in a single-channel configuration, and it lacks ECC. The N150 does have a specified memory bandwidth of 38.4 GB/s, while the Xeon’s bandwidth is not listed. The N150 also integrates UHD Graphics 730, whereas the Xeon has no integrated graphics at all. PCIe support differs: the Xeon uses Gen 2, while the N150 uses Gen 3 with 9 lanes (CPU only).

The transistor and die size data are only available for the Xeon: 1,170 million transistors on a 239 mm² die. The N150’s figures are not provided. The Xeon is end-of-life, released in March 2010, while the N150 is active, released in November 2024. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher single-core score?

A: The Intel Processor N150 scores 935 in Cinebench R23 single-core, which is 54.9% higher than the Intel Xeon E5620’s score of 422.

Q: Does the Xeon E5620 win any benchmark against the N150?

A: Yes, the Xeon E5620 wins the Cinebench R23 multi-core test with a score of 2989, which is 15.4% higher than the N150’s score of 2590.5.

Q: What is the difference in thread counts?

A: The Xeon E5620 has 8 threads (4 cores with Hyper-Threading), while the Intel Processor N150 has 4 threads (4 cores without Hyper-Threading).

Q: Which processor supports ECC memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 supports ECC memory, while the Intel Processor N150 does not.

Q: What is the process node for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon E5620 is built on a 32 nm process, while the Intel Processor N150 is built on a 10 nm process.

Q: How do their average benchmark scores compare?

A: The Xeon E5620 has an average benchmark score of 1029, and the N150 has an average score of 1025, a difference of only 0.4%.

The Verdict

Based strictly on the data, the Intel Processor N150 is the better choice for most users. It wins two of the three head-to-head benchmarks, including the critical single-core test where it is 54.9% faster. Its 10 nm architecture and 3.60 GHz boost clock deliver modern performance that the 2010-era Xeon cannot match in single-threaded tasks. The N150 also has a much lower TDP of 6 watts versus the Xeon’s 80 watts, making it vastly more power-efficient, and it includes integrated graphics.

However, the Xeon E5620 is not without merit. Its 15.4% win in Cinebench R23 multi-core shows that its 8 threads provide a real advantage in heavily threaded workloads. For a server or workstation application that runs sustained multi-threaded tasks, the Xeon’s larger 12 MB L3 cache and 8-thread capability are beneficial. The Xeon also supports ECC memory, which is critical for data integrity in server environments.

The choice comes down to workload. The N150 wins on modern efficiency, single-core speed, and overall versatility. The Xeon wins on raw multi-threaded throughput and server-specific features like ECC and triple-channel DDR3 memory. For a general-purpose or mobile system, the N150 is clearly superior. For a legacy server or a workstation that requires ECC and can utilize 8 threads, the Xeon remains viable.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon E5620 | Intel Processor N150 |

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

| Threads | 8 | 4 |

| Base Clock | 2.40 GHz | 0.10 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 2.67 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 80 W | 6 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel BGA 1264 |

| Architecture | Westmere | Twin Lake |

| Process Node | 32 nm | 10 nm |

| Transistors | 1,170 million | Not listed |

| Die Size | 239 mm² | Not listed |

| L1 Cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |

| L2 Cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (shared) |

| L3 Cache | 12 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |

| Memory Support | DDR3 | DDR4, DDR5, LPDDR5 |

| Memory Bus | Triple-channel | Single-channel |

| Memory Bandwidth | Not listed | 38.4 GB/s |

| ECC Memory | Yes | No |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 3, 9 Lanes (CPU only) |

| Integrated Graphics | None | UHD Graphics 730 |

| Market Segment | Server/Workstation | Mobile |

| Production Status | End-of-life | Active |

| Release Date | 2010-03-15 | 2024-11-19 |

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Processor N150 wins in scenarios that favor single-threaded performance and modern efficiency. Its 54.9% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core makes it the clear choice for everyday applications, web browsing, office work, and any software that relies heavily on one or two cores. Its 6 W TDP makes it ideal for fanless or battery-powered devices, and its integrated UHD Graphics 730 eliminates the need for a separate GPU. The N150’s support for DDR5 and LPDDR5 memory, along with its Gen 3 PCIe lanes, makes it suitable for modern compact systems and entry-level laptops.

The Intel Xeon E5620 wins in scenarios that demand sustained multi-threaded performance and server-grade reliability. Its 15.4% advantage in Cinebench R23 multi-core demonstrates that its 8 threads are effective in heavily parallel workloads such as video rendering, scientific computing, or database processing. The Xeon’s ECC memory support and triple-channel DDR3 configuration make it appropriate for servers where data integrity and memory bandwidth are priorities. Its 12 MB L3 cache is double that of the N150, which helps in workloads that repeatedly access large datasets.

In summary, the N150 is the winner for modern, power-conscious, single-threaded tasks. The Xeon E5620 is the winner for legacy server workloads that need 8 threads, ECC memory, and a proven track record. The data shows a clear generational trade-off: the N150 trades thread count and cache size for clock speed and efficiency, while the Xeon trades everything else for raw multi-threaded capability.