Intel Xeon W3520 vs Intel Xeon X5470 Comparison

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 records an average benchmark score of 862, while the Intel Xeon X5470 records 839. The W3520 sits at the 23rd percentile among all CPUs, while the X5470 sits at the 22nd percentile.

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

A: The W3520 wins every recorded multi-core test. In Cinebench R23 multi-core, it scores 2505 versus 2440 for the X5470, a 2.7% advantage. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the W3520 scores 252 versus 245, a 2.9% lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon W3520 and the Intel Xeon X5470 support ECC memory. Both are classified as server or workstation parts.

Q: What are the socket requirements for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 uses Intel Socket 1366, while the Intel Xeon X5470 uses Intel Socket 771. These sockets are not interchangeable, so motherboard compatibility is entirely separate.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon X5470 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz, which is higher than the 2.67 GHz base clock of the Intel Xeon W3520. However, the W3520 has a boost clock of 2.93 GHz, while the X5470 has no boost clock listed.

Q: How does the X5470 compare to its nearest rivals?

A: The X5470's average score of 839 places it within 0.3% of the Intel Xeon X3450, and it is essentially tied with the Intel Core i5-3380M and Core i5-5200U. The Intel Core i7-920 sits 0.1% above it.

Architecture Differences

The Intel Xeon W3520 and Intel Xeon X5470 come from fundamentally different architectural generations. The W3520 is built on the Nehalem architecture with the Bloomfield codename, while the X5470 belongs to the Core 2 architecture with the Harpertown codename. Both processors use a 45 nm process node from Intel, but that is where the fabrication similarities end.

The die layout differs substantially. The W3520 uses a single die of 263 mm² containing 731 million transistors. The X5470 uses a dual-die design, with each die measuring 107 mm², for a combined die area of 214 mm² and a total of 820 million transistors. The higher transistor count on the X5470 does not translate into a performance advantage in the recorded data, largely because the architectures handle threading and cache differently.

Cache organization is another major split. The W3520 has a three-level cache hierarchy: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. The X5470 has 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die, with no L3 cache at all. The absence of a shared L3 cache on the X5470 means the W3520 has a more flexible pool of cache available to all cores, which matters in multi-threaded workloads.

Threading support is a defining difference. The W3520 supports 8 threads across 4 cores, while the X5470 supports only 4 threads across 4 cores. This gives the W3520 a simultaneous multithreading advantage in workloads that scale with thread count. Memory support also differs: the W3520 uses triple-channel DDR3, while the X5470 supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus.

Both processors run PCIe Gen 2, and both lack integrated graphics. Neither is multiplier unlocked. The W3520 was released in March 2009, while the X5470 was released in September 2008. The X5470 carries a launch MSRP of $1386. Both are end-of-life products.

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon W3520. It wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, covering both multi-core and single-core workloads across R15, R20, and R23 versions. The wins are consistent but narrow, with deltas ranging from 2.6% to 2.9%.

The W3520's advantages are most pronounced in multi-core tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it leads by 2.9%, and in R20 and R23 multi-core, it leads by 2.7% in both cases. The threading advantage from 8 threads versus 4 threads appears to provide a measurable edge, even though both processors have 4 physical cores.

In single-core tests, the W3520 still leads, but by a slightly smaller margin. In Cinebench R20 single-core, it wins by 2.8%, and in R23 single-core, it wins by 2.6%. This is notable because the X5470 has a much higher base clock of 3.33 GHz versus 2.67 GHz. The W3520's boost clock of 2.93 GHz still falls well short of the X5470's base clock, yet the Nehalem architecture's per-core efficiency appears to close the gap and then push ahead.

The X5470 does not win any recorded benchmark. Its strengths are limited to specifications that do not translate into Cinebench victories: a higher base clock, a lower TDP of 120 watts versus 130 watts, and a dual-die design with more total transistors. For workloads not represented in this benchmark set, the higher clock could matter, but the data available here shows no scenario where the X5470 comes out ahead.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ on several specification fields. The W3520 has 4 cores and 8 threads, while the X5470 has 4 cores and 4 threads. Base clocks are 2.67 GHz for the W3520 and 3.33 GHz for the X5470. The W3520 has a boost clock of 2.93 GHz; the X5470 has no boost clock listed.

Thermal design power differs slightly: the W3520 is rated at 130 watts, the X5470 at 120 watts. Sockets are incompatible: the W3520 uses Intel Socket 1366, the X5470 uses Intel Socket 771. Architectures differ as noted, with Nehalem versus Core 2, and codenames Bloomfield versus Harpertown.

Transistor counts and die sizes differ. The W3520 has 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. The X5470 has 820 million transistors across two 107 mm² dies. Cache configurations are different as well: the W3520 has 256 KB of L2 per core plus 8 MB of shared L3, while the X5470 has 6 MB of L2 per die and no L3.

Memory support differs. The W3520 uses triple-channel DDR3. The X5470 supports DDR2 or DDR3 depending on the motherboard, with a dual-channel memory bus. PCIe generation is the same at Gen 2, and both support ECC memory. Release dates differ: the W3520 launched in March 2009, the X5470 in September 2008. The X5470 has a launch MSRP of $1386. Part numbers are SLBEW for the W3520 and SLBBF for the X5470.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W3520 wins every test. The largest margin comes in Cinebench R15 multi-core, where the W3520 scores 252 against 245 for the X5470, a 2.9% lead. This is the widest delta in the entire comparison.

Cinebench R20 multi-core shows the W3520 at 1052 versus 1024, a 2.7% advantage. The single-core result in R20 is 148 versus 144, a 2.8% win for the W3520. Interestingly, the single-core margin in R20 is slightly larger than the multi-core margin in the same version, which suggests the W3520's architectural efficiency is not solely dependent on its threading capability.

Cinebench R23 multi-core gives the W3520 2505 points against 2440, another 2.7% margin. The single-core run in R23 is 353 versus 344, a 2.6% lead, the narrowest margin recorded across all five tests.

The pattern is consistent across every benchmark generation. The W3520 wins by roughly 2.6% to 2.9% regardless of whether the workload is single-threaded or multi-threaded. The X5470's higher clock speed of 3.33 GHz does not overcome the W3520's architectural advantages, which include a shared L3 cache, triple-channel memory, and simultaneous multithreading.

For context, the W3520's nearest rival in the database is the Intel Core i5-3470T, which scores 863, just 0.1% above the W3520's 862. The X5470's nearest rival is the Intel Core i7-920 at 840, 0.1% above its 839. The two processors are separated by only 23 points in average benchmark score, and their percentile ranks are adjacent at 23 and 22. This is a close pairing, but the W3520 holds the edge in every measured workload.

The Verdict

The Intel Xeon W3520 is the better choice based on the recorded data. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with margins between 2.6% and 2.9%. Its average benchmark score of 862 is higher than the X5470's 839, and its 23rd percentile rank is one point above the X5470's 22nd.

The W3520's advantages come from architecture, not clock speed. It pairs 8 threads with a shared 8 MB L3 cache and triple-channel DDR3 memory. The X5470 counters with a 3.33 GHz base clock, a 120 watt TDP, and a dual-die design with 820 million transistors, but none of those specifications produce a benchmark win in this data set.

The X5470 is not without its own merits. It has a lower TDP, a higher base clock, and a launch MSRP of $1386. For workloads that are highly sensitive to raw clock speed and do not benefit from additional threads or cache sharing, the X5470 could be viable. However, the database shows no such workload among the recorded Cinebench tests.

Users who need the best multi-threaded rendering performance should pick the W3520. Users who are constrained by the Socket 771 platform or who prioritize the higher base clock and lower TDP of the X5470 may still consider it, but the benchmark evidence favors the W3520 across the board. The data is consistent, the margins are stable, and the outcome is clear.