Intel Xeon E5450 vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

FAQ

Q: What are the core specifications of the Intel Xeon E5450 and the Intel Xeon X5460?

A: Both are 4-core, 4-thread Intel processors with a 45 nm process node, 820 million transistors, and a dual-die design at 2x 107 mm². They use Socket 771, support DDR2 and DDR3 memory depending on the motherboard, and feature a dual-channel memory bus. The E5450 has a base clock of 3.00 GHz and a TDP of 80 W, while the X5460 has a base clock of 3.17 GHz and a TDP of 120 W.

Q: How do the two processors compare in multi-core benchmarks?

A: The E5450 wins all multi-core tests. Its scores are 221 in Cinebench R15, 923 in R20 multi-core, and 2198 in R23 multi-core. The X5460 scores 220, 920, and 2191 respectively. The deltas are small, with the E5450 leading by 0.5%, 0.3%, and 0.3% in those tests.

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core performance?

A: The E5450 again takes the lead. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it scores 130 versus 129 for the X5460, a 0.8% difference. In R23 single-core, the E5450 scores 310 versus 309, a 0.3% gap.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The E5450 has an average benchmark score of 756, while the X5460 scores 754. The nearest rival to the E5450 is the Intel Core i5-4250U with an identical average score of 756, and the nearest rival to the X5460 is the Intel Core i5-3230M at 754.

Q: What is the market positioning of these chips?

A: Both are classified as Server/Workstation processors, part of Intel's Core 2 architecture with the Harpertown codename. They were released on the same date in November 2007, and both are end-of-life products. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

Q: What do the head-to-head results indicate about the overall winner?

A: The E5450 wins all five head-to-head benchmark comparisons. It holds a perfect 5-0 record against the X5460, with the largest margin being 0.8% in Cinebench R20 single-core.

The Verdict

The data presents a clear, albeit narrow, picture. The Intel Xeon E5450 is the superior processor in every recorded benchmark. Across all five tests, the E5450 outperforms the X5460, though the margins are consistently small, ranging from 0.3% to 0.8%. For a buyer choosing strictly between these two, the E5450 is the obvious pick if raw performance is the only criterion.

However, the X5460 is not without its own merit. It offers a higher base clock of 3.17 GHz compared to the E5450's 3.00 GHz, which might suggest superior speed in clock-sensitive tasks. Yet, the benchmark data does not support that expectation; the lower-clocked E5450 still wins every test. This indicates that factors beyond the base clock, such as thermal management or silicon quality, play a role in the observed results.

The X5460 does carry a significantly higher TDP of 120 W versus 80 W for the E5450. This is a critical consideration for system builders or data center operators. The E5450 achieves better performance while consuming less power, making it the more efficient choice from a thermal and energy standpoint. The launch MSRP of the E5450 was $915, while the X5460 launched at $1172.

For users with existing Socket 771 platforms, the E5450 is the recommended upgrade or selection. It wins on performance, efficiency, and lower launch price. The X5460 should only be considered if a specific system requires the higher base clock for a workload that does not appear in the benchmark suite, but the recorded data offers no such justification.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results are remarkably consistent. The E5450 wins every single comparison, but the margins are minimal. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the E5450 scores 221 against 220 for the X5460, a delta of 0.5%. This is the second-largest margin in the entire set.

The Cinebench R20 multi-core test shows the E5450 at 923 and the X5460 at 920, a 0.3% advantage. The single-core R20 test is where the E5450 achieves its largest win: 130 versus 129, a 0.8% delta. This is notable because the X5460 has a higher base clock, yet it loses in single-threaded performance.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the E5450 scores 2198 versus 2191, again a 0.3% lead. The R23 single-core test repeats the pattern: 310 versus 309, a 0.3% margin. Across all five tests, the average delta is roughly 0.4%, which is within the range of run-to-run variance for many benchmark suites.

The practical interpretation is that these two processors are nearly identical in performance. The E5450's wins are consistent but not substantial. In a real-world environment, a user would be hard-pressed to notice a 0.3% difference in rendering times or workload completion. The X5460's higher clock speed does not translate into any benchmark victory, which is a surprising result given its 3.17 GHz versus 3.00 GHz specification.

Specification Differences

The two processors share most of their core specifications, but there are three fields where they differ. The most obvious difference is the base clock: the X5460 runs at 3.17 GHz, while the E5450 runs at 3.00 GHz. This 0.17 GHz gap is the X5460's only clock advantage.

The TDP is another point of divergence. The E5450 has a TDP of 80 W, while the X5460 is rated at 120 W. This is a substantial 40 W difference, which impacts cooling requirements and power delivery design. The lower TDP of the E5450 is a significant advantage in dense server deployments.

The launch MSRP also differs. The E5450 was priced at $915 at launch, while the X5460 carried a higher price of $1172. This price gap did not correlate with performance, as the more expensive X5460 loses all benchmarks.

All other specifications are identical: 4 cores, 4 threads, 45 nm process, 820 million transistors, 2x 107 mm² die size, 64 KB L1 cache per core, 6 MB L2 cache per die, Socket 771, dual-channel memory bus, DDR2/DDR3 support, ECC memory support, PCIe Gen 2, and no integrated graphics. Both are end-of-life products released on the same date.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on the same Core 2 architecture with the Harpertown codename. They share the same 45 nm process node, fabricated by Intel, and both contain 820 million transistors. The die size is identical at 2x 107 mm², indicating the same physical layout and manufacturing process.

The cache hierarchy is also identical. Each core has 64 KB of L1 cache, and each die carries 6 MB of L2 cache. There is no L3 cache or 3D V-Cache on either processor. The memory support is the same: DDR2 and DDR3, with the actual type depending on the motherboard. Both use a dual-channel memory bus.

The architectural similarity is total. There are no differences in node, core design, cache structure, or memory controller behavior. The only differences in the silicon are the clock speed and the TDP rating. This explains why the benchmark results are so close: the two chips are essentially the same design with different clock bins and power profiles.

The X5460's higher TDP suggests it was binned for higher clock speeds, which it does have, but that higher binning does not yield better benchmark results. The E5450, with its lower TDP and lower clock, manages to outperform the X5460 in all tests, suggesting that the E5450's silicon is more efficient in practice.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Xeon E5450 wins in every single benchmark category. It is the clear victor in multi-threaded workloads, as shown by its wins in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23 multi-core tests. For rendering, video encoding, or any heavily parallelized task, the E5450 is the better choice, albeit by a slim margin.

The E5450 also wins in single-threaded performance, taking both Cinebench R20 and R23 single-core tests. This is significant because single-thread performance is often the bottleneck in older software or lightly threaded applications. The E5450's advantage here, particularly the 0.8% margin in R20 single-core, indicates it is also the better choice for legacy or single-threaded workloads.

The X5460 has no benchmark wins. Its only advantages are its higher base clock of 3.17 GHz and its higher TDP of 120 W. In scenarios where a higher clock speed is theoretically beneficial, such as extremely short burst workloads or interactions with external hardware that depend on clock rate, the X5460 might have a nominal edge, but the recorded data does not support this.

For thermal-constrained environments, the E5450 is the definitive winner. Its 80 W TDP versus 120 W means it generates less heat, requires a smaller or quieter cooling solution, and places less strain on the power delivery system. In a rack server environment with many sockets, the E5450's lower TDP allows for denser packing or lower cooling costs.

The X5460's use case is limited to systems that specifically require its higher base clock and have adequate cooling to handle the 120 W TDP. If a workload is purely clock-bound and does not benefit from the architectural efficiencies that the E5450 demonstrates in benchmarks, the X5460 could be considered. However, given that the E5450 wins all five head-to-head tests, the data suggests that the X5460's clock advantage is effectively nullified in practice. For all practical purposes, the E5450 is the superior processor across every measured dimension.