Intel Xeon W3520 vs Intel Xeon X3450 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark record splits decisively in favor of the Intel Xeon W3520, which wins all five recorded Cinebench comparisons. The W3520 takes the multi-core tests by margins between 2.8% and 3.0%, while the single-core tests show a 2.7% to 2.8% advantage. For workloads that scale across cores, such as rendering or batch processing, the W3520 is the stronger pick in every measured scenario.

The Intel Xeon X3450 does not win a single recorded benchmark. However, its lower 95 W TDP compared to the W3520's 130 W makes it the more power-conscious option for dense server deployments where thermal headroom is limited. The X3450 also uses the Intel Socket 1156 platform, which may be the more accessible upgrade path depending on the motherboard already in service.

For users prioritizing peak throughput in Cinebench-style multi-threaded rendering, the W3520 holds a consistent edge. For those optimizing around platform power envelopes and socket compatibility, the X3450 presents the more flexible choice, despite trailing in raw scores.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon X3450 boosts to 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Xeon W3520 reaches 2.93 GHz. The X3450 has a 0.27 GHz higher turbo frequency.

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

A: The W3520 leads in all multi-core Cinebench tests. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2505 versus 2431 for the X3450, a 3.0% advantage. The R20 multi-core test shows 1052 versus 1021, a 2.9% edge.

Q: Is there any benchmark where the X3450 comes out ahead?

A: No. The head-to-head data records zero wins for the X3450 and five wins for the W3520 across all five Cinebench comparisons.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes. Both the X3450 and the W3520 support ECC memory.

Q: What socket does each processor use?

A: The X3450 uses Intel Socket 1156, while the W3520 uses Intel Socket 1366. They are not socket-compatible with each other.

Q: Which processor uses less power?

A: The X3450 has a TDP of 95 W, while the W3520 has a TDP of 130 W. The X3450 draws less thermal power on paper.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon W3520. The smallest margin appears in Cinebench R20 single-core, where the W3520 scores 148 against the X3450's 144, a 2.7% difference. The largest gap, 3.0%, occurs in Cinebench R23 multi-core, with scores of 2505 and 2431 respectively.

Cinebench R15 multi-core repeats the pattern: the W3520 posts 252 versus 245 for the X3450, a 2.8% lead. Cinebench R20 multi-core shows 1052 versus 1021, also a 2.9% gap. The R23 single-core test lands at 353 for the W3520 and 343 for the X3450, a 2.8% advantage.

These margins are modest but consistent. The W3520 never trails by any measurable amount in the recorded suite, and its smallest win is still nearly three percent. For applications that rely on sustained multi-threaded throughput, the W3520's advantage in every multi-core metric makes it the safer choice, even though the X3450's higher boost clock does not translate into a benchmark victory.

The average benchmark scores in the database reinforce this picture: the W3520 carries an average score of 862, while the X3450 sits at 837. That puts the W3520 roughly 3% higher on average, which aligns with the individual Cinebench deltas. The W3520 also ranks in the 23rd percentile of all CPUs, versus the 22nd percentile for the X3450. Neither chip is a high-flyer in modern terms, but the W3520 consistently edges out its sibling.

Specification Differences

The two processors diverge on several core specifications despite sharing the same base clock, core count, and thread count. Both run at a 2.67 GHz base clock with 4 cores and 8 threads. The boost clock differs: the X3450 reaches 3.20 GHz, the W3520 only 2.93 GHz.

Thermal design power also separates them. The X3450 is rated at 95 W, the W3520 at 130 W. That 35 W difference matters for cooling and power delivery in dense systems.

Sockets are not interchangeable. The X3450 uses Intel Socket 1156, the W3520 uses Intel Socket 1366.

Memory channels differ as well. The X3450 supports dual-channel DDR3 with a recorded memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. The W3520 supports triple-channel DDR3, though the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it.

The PCIe configuration also varies. The X3450 lists "Gen 2, 16 Lanes (CPU only)", while the W3520 simply lists "Gen 2" without lane specifics.

Release dates are separated by several months. The X3450 launched on September 7, 2009; the W3520 launched on March 29, 2009. The X3450 carries a launch MSRP of $241, while the W3520 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's Nehalem architecture and use the same 45 nm process node from Intel's own foundry. They share the same cache hierarchy: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3. Both support DDR3 memory and ECC, and neither includes integrated graphics.

The codenames differ. The X3450 is a Lynnfield part, while the W3520 is a Bloomfield part. That distinction accounts for the platform differences: Lynnfield targets the Socket 1156 mainstream-server market, while Bloomfield occupies the Socket 1366 high-end desktop and workstation segment.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ slightly. The X3450 packs 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The W3520 uses 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The X3450 has a larger die and more transistors, which is consistent with its lower TDP and higher boost clock, suggesting a different power-management approach within the same generation.

The W3520's triple-channel memory controller is a meaningful architectural difference. The X3450's dual-channel setup limits memory bandwidth to the recorded 21.3 GB/s, while the W3520's triple-channel design offers additional headroom for memory-intensive workloads, even though no bandwidth figure is recorded for it.

In practice, the W3520's architecture gives it a slight but consistent edge in the Cinebench suite, likely due to the memory subsystem and platform design. The X3450 counters with a higher boost clock and lower power draw, but the benchmark data shows that does not translate into a win in any recorded test. For users weighing the two, the W3520 is the performance pick, while the X3450 is the efficiency-oriented alternative.