CPU Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5482 and Intel Xeon E5530 are two end-of-life server processors that, despite being separated by nearly a year and a half in release and built on different architectures, deliver nearly identical benchmark results. The data shows a remarkably tight race, with the older Harpertown chip edging out the newer Gainestown part in every single recorded test, though by margins so slim they are effectively within the margin of error.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark results paint a picture of extreme parity, with the X5482 winning all five head-to-head comparisons by less than one percent. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the X5482 scores 235 against the E5530’s 234, a delta of just 0.4%. The story repeats in Cinebench R20 multi-core, where the X5482 posts 983 versus 977, a 0.6% advantage. Single-core performance is equally close: the X5482 leads 138 to 137 in R20 single-core (0.7% delta) and 330 to 328 in R23 single-core (0.6% delta). The largest gap is in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the X5482’s 2341 score tops the E5530’s 2328 by a 0.6% margin.

These numbers indicate that in purely computational throughput, the two CPUs are functionally equivalent. The X5482’s higher base clock of 3.20 GHz gives it a slight edge in every workload, but the E5530’s Hyper-Threading (4 cores, 8 threads versus 4 cores, 4 threads) does not translate into a multi-core victory. Instead, the E5530’s lower clock speed of 2.40 GHz (with a boost up to 2.67 GHz) appears to offset its threading advantage, leaving it just behind in every test. The average benchmark scores confirm this: the X5482 holds an 805 average against the E5530’s 801, a 0.5% overall difference.

Architecture Differences

The two processors represent distinct design philosophies from Intel. The X5482 is built on the Core 2 architecture, codenamed Harpertown, while the E5530 uses the newer Nehalem architecture, codenamed Gainestown. Both are manufactured on a 45 nm process at Intel’s foundry, but the similarities end there. The X5482 packs 820 million transistors across a dual-die design measuring 2x 107 mm², whereas the E5530 integrates 731 million transistors on a single 263 mm² die.

Cache configurations differ substantially. The X5482 offers 64 KB of L1 cache per core and a 6 MB L2 cache per die, with no L3 cache. The E5530 also has 64 KB of L1 per core but uses a smaller 256 KB L2 cache per core, compensated by a shared 8 MB L3 cache. This architectural shift reflects Nehalem’s move toward a more integrated memory hierarchy. The X5482 supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory depending on the motherboard, using a dual-channel memory bus, while the E5530 is limited to DDR3 but benefits from a triple-channel memory bus, yielding a theoretical memory bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s.

Power consumption is a major differentiator. The X5482 has a TDP of 150 watts, nearly double the E5530’s 80 watts. This is a direct consequence of the X5482’s higher clock speed and older architecture. Both CPUs support ECC memory and use PCIe Gen 2, but they require different sockets: the X5482 fits Intel Socket 771, while the E5530 uses Intel Socket 1366. The E5530 also features a boost clock of 2.67 GHz, a capability the X5482 lacks entirely. In terms of market positioning, both were aimed at Server/Workstation segments, and both are now end-of-life, with the X5482 released on 2007-11-10 and the E5530 on 2009-03-29.

Where Each One Wins

Given the near-identical benchmark scores, the wins are largely contextual rather than performance-driven. The X5482 wins every synthetic benchmark, but the margins are razor-thin. The data suggests the X5482’s advantage lies in raw clock speed. Its 3.20 GHz base clock is 33% higher than the E5530’s 2.40 GHz base and 20% higher than the E5530’s 2.67 GHz boost. This makes the X5482 marginally better for lightly-threaded workloads where single-core performance dominates, as evidenced by its 0.7% lead in Cinebench R20 single-core.

The E5530, despite losing every test, offers structural advantages that are not captured in these Cinebench scores. Its 80-watt TDP makes it far more power-efficient, consuming 46.7% less power than the X5482’s 150-watt TDP. In multi-threaded applications, the E5530’s 8 threads should theoretically provide better scaling, yet the data shows it still trails. However, the E5530’s triple-channel memory bus and 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth could deliver superior performance in memory-bound scenarios, even if Cinebench does not reflect this. The X5482’s larger L2 cache (6 MB per die) versus the E5530’s 256 KB per core L2 might also favor the X5482 in cache-sensitive workloads, but the E5530’s shared 8 MB L3 cache could compensate in other cases.

From a platform perspective, the E5530’s Socket 1366 and DDR3-only support represent a more modern foundation, potentially offering better upgrade paths or feature sets. The X5482’s Socket 771 and dual-channel memory bus are older technologies. Neither processor has integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is required in both cases.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unequivocal: the Intel Xeon X5482 wins all five head-to-head comparisons, but the victories are statistically insignificant. The X5482’s 805 average benchmark score places it in the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, while the E5530’s 801 places it in the 21st percentile. Both are within 0.5% of each other, and both trail the Intel Core i5-3320M, which scores 803, by a negligible margin.

For users prioritizing raw clock speed and single-core performance, the X5482 is the better choice. Its 3.20 GHz clock and 6 MB L2 cache per die give it a slight edge in every Cinebench test. However, the E5530 is the stronger pick for power-conscious deployments. Its 80-watt TDP is dramatically lower than the X5482’s 150 watts, making it far more suitable for dense server environments where thermal and power budgets are critical. The E5530 also offers a boost clock of 2.67 GHz, a feature absent on the X5482, and its triple-channel DDR3 memory support provides 25.6 GB/s of bandwidth, which could benefit memory-intensive tasks even if those gains do not appear in Cinebench.

Ultimately, the choice hinges on platform and efficiency. The X5482’s performance lead is real but marginal, never exceeding 0.7%. The E5530’s architectural advantages, Hyper-Threading, lower TDP, and newer memory controller, make it the more future-proof option despite losing every benchmark. The data does not support a decisive victory for either part; it supports a tie, with the X5482 taking the performance crown by a hair and the E5530 winning on efficiency.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Intel Xeon X5482 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Xeon E5530 runs at 2.40 GHz with a boost clock of 2.67 GHz.

Q: How do the two chips compare in multi-core Cinebench R23?

A: The X5482 scores 2341 against the E5530’s 2328, a 0.6% difference in favor of the X5482.

Q: Does the E5530 have more threads than the X5482?

A: Yes, the E5530 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading on its 4 cores, whereas the X5482 has 4 cores and 4 threads.

Q: What is the TDP difference between the two processors?

A: The X5482 has a TDP of 150 watts, while the E5530 has a TDP of 80 watts, making the E5530 significantly more power-efficient.

Q: Which processor supports triple-channel memory?

A: The Intel Xeon E5530 supports triple-channel DDR3 memory with a bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s. The X5482 uses dual-channel memory.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each CPU?

A: The X5482 has an average benchmark score of 805, placing it in the 22nd percentile, while the E5530 scores 801, placing it in the 21st percentile.