Intel Xeon W3520 vs Intel Xeon X5492 Comparison

The Intel Xeon W3520 and Intel Xeon X5492 are both end-of-life server/workstation processors from Intel, but they represent two distinct architectural eras. The W3520 is a Nehalem-based part (codename Bloomfield) with 4 cores and 8 threads, while the X5492 is a Core 2-based part (codename Harpertown) with 4 cores and 4 threads. Benchmark data reveals a remarkably close contest, with the W3520 edging ahead in every single tested workload, though the margins are consistently narrow.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon W3520, but the victories are measured in percentage points, not landslides. Across all five Cinebench tests, the W3520 wins by margins ranging from 1.1% to 1.4%. The largest single-core gap appears in the Cinebench R20 single-core test, where the W3520 scores 148 against the X5492’s 146, a 1.4% advantage. In multi-core workloads, the W3520’s hyper-threading advantage becomes visible, though it does not translate into a dramatic lead. For instance, in Cinebench R23 multi-core, the W3520 scores 2505 versus 2475 for the X5492, a 1.2% difference.

The pattern holds across all generations of the Cinebench suite. In the older R15 multi-core test, the W3520 scores 252 against the X5492’s 249, again a 1.2% gap. The R20 multi-core test shows the W3520 at 1052 versus 1039, a 1.3% margin. Interestingly, the single-core results are nearly as close as the multi-core ones. In R23 single-core, the W3520 posts 353 versus 349, a 1.1% difference. The consistency of these margins—all hovering near 1.2%—suggests that the architectural differences between Nehalem and Core 2 largely cancel out when comparing these specific clock speeds.

The average benchmark scores tell a similar story. The W3520 has an average benchmark score of 862, while the X5492 sits at 852. Both processors fall into the 23rd percentile of all CPUs, indicating they are mid-pack performers by modern standards. The nearest rivals for each chip reinforce this positioning: the W3520 is bracketed by the Intel Core i5-3470T (863, -0.1% delta) and the AMD A8-7650K (860, +0.2% delta), while the X5492 sits near the Intel Core i5-5250U (856, -0.4% delta) and the AMD Athlon X4 830 (848, +0.4% delta). These comparator deltas are all under 1%, meaning neither chip has a meaningful edge over its closest competitors.

The Verdict

The data points to a clear, if narrow, winner: the Intel Xeon W3520. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, and its average benchmark score is 10 points higher than the X5492’s. The W3520’s 8 threads versus the X5492’s 4 threads provide a structural advantage in multi-threaded workloads, even if the real-world deltas are small. For applications that can leverage more than four threads, the W3520 is the better choice based strictly on the benchmark results.

However, the X5492 is not a poor performer. Its 3.40 GHz base clock is substantially higher than the W3520’s 2.67 GHz base clock, yet it still loses in every test. This suggests the W3520’s newer Nehalem architecture is more efficient per clock cycle. The X5492’s only redeeming factor in the data is its launch MSRP of $1493, which is listed in the fact pack. The W3520 has no launch MSRP listed, so no direct price comparison is possible. For a buyer choosing between these two on a used market, the W3520 offers better benchmark performance across the board. The X5492 is only preferable if the platform (Socket 771) or dual-channel memory setup is somehow required, but the benchmark data itself favors the W3520 in every category.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher single-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 scores 353, while the Intel Xeon X5492 scores 349, giving the W3520 a 1.1% advantage.

Q: How much faster is the W3520 in the Cinebench R20 multi-core test?

A: The W3520 scores 1052 versus the X5492’s 1039, a 1.3% difference.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon W3520 and the Intel Xeon X5492 are listed as supporting ECC memory.

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

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 has an average benchmark score of 862, and the Intel Xeon X5492 has an average benchmark score of 852.

Q: How many threads does each processor have?

A: The Intel Xeon W3520 has 8 threads, while the Intel Xeon X5492 has 4 threads.

Q: What is the X5492’s launch MSRP?

A: The Intel Xeon X5492 had a launch MSRP of $1493.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in several key specifications beyond their benchmark scores. The Intel Xeon W3520 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 2.93 GHz, while the X5492 has a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock listed. The W3520 has a TDP of 130 watts, whereas the X5492 has a higher TDP of 150 watts. The sockets are different: the W3520 uses Intel Socket 1366, and the X5492 uses Intel Socket 771.

Memory support also diverges. The W3520 supports DDR3 memory with a triple-channel memory bus, while the X5492 supports both DDR2 and DDR3 but operates on a dual-channel memory bus. The W3520 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache, while the X5492 has 6 MB of L2 cache per die and no L3 cache. The W3520’s L1 cache is 64 KB per core and its L2 cache is 256 KB per core; the X5492’s L1 cache is also 64 KB per core, but its L2 cache is organized differently at 6 MB per die. Both processors have a 45 nm process node, support PCIe Gen 2, and are end-of-life products. The W3520 was released on 2009-03-29, while the X5492 was released earlier on 2008-09-07. Neither processor has an unlocked multiplier. The part numbers are SLBEW for the W3520 and SLBBD for the X5492.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two chips is significant. The W3520 is based on the Nehalem architecture with the codename Bloomfield, while the X5492 uses the Core 2 architecture with the codename Harpertown. This difference in design generation explains much of the performance parity despite the X5492’s higher clock speed. The W3520 integrates an 8 MB shared L3 cache, whereas the X5492 relies on a 6 MB L2 cache per die with no L3. The W3520’s die size is 263 mm² with 731 million transistors, while the X5492’s die is split into two 107 mm² dies with 820 million transistors total.

The thread counts are a direct result of the architectures. Nehalem introduced simultaneous multi-threading (SMT), giving the W3520 8 threads from its 4 cores. The Core 2 architecture in the X5492 does not support SMT, so it has only 4 threads. The memory controllers also differ: the W3520 uses a triple-channel DDR3 controller, while the X5492 uses a dual-channel controller supporting both DDR2 and DDR3. Both processors are manufactured by Intel on a 45 nm process and are built at Intel’s foundry. The W3520’s market segment is listed as Server/Workstation, as is the X5492’s, but the W3520’s Nehalem architecture is the newer design. The X5492’s higher base clock of 3.40 GHz could not overcome its architectural disadvantage, as the benchmark results show. The W3520’s smaller transistor count (731 million versus 820 million) but larger die (263 mm² versus 2x 107 mm²) indicates a different physical design approach, with the Nehalem chip consolidating more functionality onto a single die.