Intel Xeon E5520 vs Intel Xeon X5460 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5460 and Intel Xeon E5520 are two server processors from different generations of Intel's Xeon lineup, and the benchmark data in the database reveals a surprisingly consistent pattern. Across five Cinebench tests, the older X5460, built on the Core 2 architecture, edges out the newer E5520, a Nehalem-based part, by a margin of roughly 1.4% to 1.7% in every workload. This is a narrow but uniform victory, and it raises immediate questions about what architectural differences allow the older part to hold its ground. The following analysis breaks down the head-to-head results, the underlying silicon, and the practical implications for anyone choosing between these two end-of-life processors.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The database records five direct comparisons between the X5460 and the E5520, and the X5460 wins all of them. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the X5460 scores 220 against the E5520's 217, a difference of 1.4%. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap widens slightly to 1.7%, with scores of 920 and 905 respectively. The single-core tests show a similar story: in Cinebench R20 single-core, the X5460 posts 129 versus 127, a 1.6% lead, and in Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 309 against 304, again 1.6% ahead. The largest absolute margin appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the X5460 records 2191 compared to the E5520's 2155, a 1.7% advantage.

What stands out here is not the size of the lead, which is modest, but its consistency. Every workload, whether it stresses all cores or just one, favors the X5460. This uniformity suggests that the performance difference is not workload-specific but rather a baseline characteristic of the two chips. It also implies that the E5520's architectural advantages, which are substantial on paper, do not translate into a measurable win in these Cinebench tests. The average benchmark score in the database reinforces this: the X5460 sits at 754, while the E5520 falls to 742, a raw gap of 12 points.

For context, the nearest rivals for each processor help frame these numbers. The X5460's average score of 754 places it alongside the Intel Core i5-3230M, which scores 754 (a delta of -0.1%), and the Intel Xeon E5450, which scores 756 (a delta of -0.3%). The E5520, with an average of 742, is closest to the AMD Phenom II X4 B97 and the Intel Core i5-670, both at 741 (deltas of 0.1% and 0.2% respectively). Neither processor reaches beyond the 20th percentile of all CPUs in the database, so both are firmly in the lower performance tier by modern standards. But within their own pairing, the X5460 holds a clear, if small, edge.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two chips is stark, and it explains why the benchmark results are so intriguing. The X5460 is built on Intel's Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown, and uses a 45 nm process node. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, meaning no hyper-threading, and a base clock of 3.17 GHz with no boost clock. In contrast, the E5520 uses the Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown, also on a 45 nm node, but it offers 4 cores and 8 threads thanks to hyper-threading. Its base clock is 2.27 GHz, with a boost clock of 2.53 GHz. The X5460's higher base clock, a full 0.9 GHz above the E5520's base, appears to compensate for the E5520's extra threads in these particular benchmarks.

Cache layout is another major divergence. The X5460 has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, and its L2 cache is 6 MB per die, which in a dual-die package means 12 MB total, though the database lists it as 6 MB per die. The E5520 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 is smaller at 256 KB per core, and it adds an 8 MB shared L3 cache. This is a fundamental shift from the older Core 2 design, which lacked L3 entirely. The E5520's larger total cache footprint, 8 MB of L3 plus per-core L2, should help with data reuse, but the benchmark results suggest it does not overcome the clock speed deficit.

Transistor counts and die sizes also differ. The X5460 packs 820 million transistors across two dies, each 107 mm², for a combined die size of 214 mm². The E5520 uses a single 263 mm² die with 731 million transistors. The dual-die design of the X5460 is a product of its era, while the E5520's monolithic die reflects Nehalem's integrated memory controller and QPI links. Memory support further separates them: the X5460 supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus, while the E5520 supports only DDR3, but on a triple-channel bus. Both support ECC memory, and both use PCIe Gen 2.

Socket compatibility is a practical difference. The X5460 fits Intel Socket 771, while the E5520 uses Intel Socket 1366. These are not interchangeable, so platform choice is predetermined by the motherboard. The E5520 also has a lower TDP at 80 watts, compared to the X5460's 120 watts, which has implications for cooling and power delivery, though the database does not provide wattage figures beyond these.

Where Each One Wins

Given the head-to-head results, the X5460 wins every recorded benchmark, but the interpretation of those wins requires nuance. The X5460's advantage in single-core tests, such as Cinebench R23 single-core at 309 versus 304, points to its raw clock speed being the deciding factor. A 3.17 GHz clock with no boost means sustained high-frequency execution, which is ideal for lightly threaded workloads like legacy applications, single-threaded scripting, or older software that cannot leverage multiple cores. The 1.6% lead in single-core performance, while small, is consistent and suggests that for tasks where clock speed dominates, the X5460 is the better choice.

In multi-core tests, the X5460 also wins, but the margin remains tight. The E5520's hyper-threading, which doubles its thread count from 4 to 8, should theoretically improve multi-threaded performance. Yet the database shows the X5460 ahead by 1.7% in both Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core. This indicates that Cinebench's workload scaling does not favor the E5520's extra threads enough to overcome the X5460's higher base clock. For workloads that are heavily multi-threaded and scale well beyond 4 threads, the E5520 might fare better in real-world scenarios, but the recorded data does not support that claim.

The E5520's wins, if any, would likely come from scenarios not captured by these benchmarks. Its 8 MB shared L3 cache and triple-channel DDR3 memory interface could benefit memory-bandwidth-intensive tasks, such as database queries or virtualization workloads, where data throughput matters more than raw compute. But since the database provides no memory bandwidth scores, this remains speculative. The E5520's lower TDP of 80 watts also makes it more attractive for dense server deployments where power consumption is a constraint, though the X5460's higher clock may be worth the extra 40 watts in some cases.

Specification Differences

The specification table shows several key differences between the two processors. Clock speeds are the most obvious: the X5460 has a base clock of 3.17 GHz and no boost clock, while the E5520 has a base clock of 2.27 GHz and a boost clock of 2.53 GHz. The X5460's base clock is 0.9 GHz higher, and even the E5520's boost clock falls short of the X5460's sustained frequency. Thread counts differ as well: the X5460 has 4 threads, the E5520 has 8 threads, meaning the E5520 can handle twice as many concurrent threads via hyper-threading.

Cache specifications diverge significantly. The X5460 has 6 MB of L2 per die, with no L3, while the E5520 has 256 KB of L2 per core (1 MB total for 4 cores) and 8 MB of shared L3. The E5520's total cache of 9 MB exceeds the X5460's effective 12 MB (two dies of 6 MB each), but the distribution is different. Memory support also differs: the X5460 supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, while the E5520 supports only DDR3. The memory bus is dual-channel on the X5460 and triple-channel on the E5520, giving the E5520 a wider memory path.

Physical and power characteristics round out the differences. The X5460 has a TDP of 120 watts, the E5520 has 80 watts. The X5460 uses Socket 771, the E5520 uses Socket 1366. Transistor counts are 820 million for the X5460 versus 731 million for the E5520, and die sizes are 2x 107 mm² versus 263 mm². The X5460's release date is November 2007, while the E5520's is March 2009, making the X5460 about 16 months older. The X5460 has a launch MSRP of $1172, while the E5520 has no recorded launch MSRP. Both are end-of-life and neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon X5460 has a base clock of 3.17 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5520 has a base clock of 2.27 GHz. The X5460's base clock is 0.9 GHz higher, and the E5520's boost clock of 2.53 GHz still does not reach the X5460's sustained speed.

Q: How do the thread counts compare?

A: The X5460 has 4 cores and 4 threads, so no hyper-threading. The E5520 has 4 cores and 8 threads, meaning it can process twice as many threads simultaneously thanks to hyper-threading.

Q: What is the cache difference between the two?

A: The X5460 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die, with no L3 cache. The E5520 also has 64 KB of L1 per core, but its L2 is 256 KB per core, and it adds an 8 MB shared L3 cache.

Q: Do these processors support the same memory types?

A: No. The X5460 supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus. The E5520 supports only DDR3, but on a triple-channel memory bus.

Q: Which processor has a lower TDP?

A: The E5520 has a TDP of 80 watts, while the X5460 has a TDP of 120 watts. The E5520 is more power-efficient in terms of thermal design power.

Q: Are these processors compatible with the same motherboard socket?

A: No. The X5460 uses Intel Socket 771, while the E5520 uses Intel Socket 1366. They require different motherboards and are not interchangeable.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon X5460. It wins all five recorded benchmarks, with leads ranging from 1.4% to 1.7%. Its higher base clock of 3.17 GHz, compared to the E5520's 2.27 GHz, appears to be the decisive factor, allowing it to outperform despite the E5520's hyper-threading and larger shared L3 cache. For anyone running Cinebench-like workloads, whether single-threaded or multi-threaded, the X5460 is the better performer based on the recorded scores.

However, the verdict should not ignore the E5520's strengths. Its 8 threads, 8 MB shared L3 cache, and triple-channel DDR3 support make it architecturally superior for memory-intensive and heavily parallel workloads, even if the benchmark data does not capture those advantages. Its lower TDP of 80 watts also makes it a more attractive option for power-constrained environments. The E5520 is a more modern design with greater headroom for scaling, but in the specific tests recorded, it loses every time.

For a user prioritizing raw benchmark scores and willing to accept a 120-watt TDP, the X5460 is the pick. For a user who values power efficiency, memory bandwidth, and the potential for better multi-threaded scaling in unmeasured workloads, the E5520 has merits. But strictly from the database's head-to-head results, the X5460 is the faster processor.