Intel Xeon W3565 vs Intel Xeon X3470 Comparison

Where Each One Wins

The recorded benchmark data splits decisively in favor of the Intel Xeon W3565. Across the five Cinebench tests in the database, the W3565 wins all five. The Xeon X3470 does not record a single victory. That said, the margins are narrow, so the practical meaning is that the W3565 is consistently slightly ahead, not that it dominates in any single workload category.

The largest advantage for the W3565 appears in multi-core tests. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the W3565 scores 1212 against 1199 for the X3470, a delta of 1.1%. The Cinebench R23 multi-core run shows the same 1.1% gap, with scores of 2888 and 2857 respectively. These are the two biggest wins in the dataset. For users running heavily threaded rendering workloads, the data suggests the W3565 holds a small but repeatable edge.

Single-core results tell a similar story. The W3565 wins Cinebench R20 single-core with 170 versus 169, a 0.6% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the W3565 scores 407 against 403, a 1% delta. The Cinebench R15 multi-core test is the closest of all: 290 for the W3565 versus 287 for the X3470, a 1% difference. None of these margins would transform the user experience, but they are consistent.

The X3470 does have a higher boost clock at 3.60 GHz compared to 3.47 GHz for the W3565. That could suggest an advantage in lightly threaded, boost-sensitive tasks, yet the single-core benchmark results do not confirm it. The W3565 wins every single-core test despite the lower boost ceiling. This is a useful reminder that clock speed alone does not predict benchmark outcomes.

In terms of overall standing, the W3565 sits at the 27th percentile of all CPUs in the database, while the X3470 sits at the 26th. The average benchmark score for the W3565 is 993, against 983 for the X3470. That 10-point gap in average score aligns with the per-test results. The W3565 is the better performer in every recorded metric, but both parts are firmly in the same performance tier.

Architecture Differences

Both processors use Intel's Nehalem architecture, but they come from different codenames and are built for different sockets. The W3565 is a Bloomfield part on Intel Socket 1366, while the X3470 is a Lynnfield part on Intel Socket 1156. This socket difference is fundamental: the two chips are not interchangeable in a system.

The manufacturing process is identical at 45 nm, and both are built by Intel. Transistor counts differ slightly. The W3565 packs 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die, while the X3470 has 774 million transistors on a 296 mm² die. The X3470 is the larger and denser chip, but that does not translate into a performance advantage in the recorded benchmarks.

Core and thread counts match: both have 4 cores and 8 threads. Cache hierarchies are also identical in configuration. Each has 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. With the same core count and same cache layout, the architectural differences come down to memory and PCIe.

The memory bus is the most significant divergence. The W3565 uses triple-channel DDR3, while the X3470 uses dual-channel DDR3. The X3470 lists a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s; the W3565 does not have a recorded bandwidth figure in the database. For memory-sensitive workloads, the triple-channel setup on the W3565 could offer more headroom, though the benchmark data does not isolate this effect.

PCIe support also differs. The W3565 lists PCIe Gen 2 without a lane count specification. The X3470 lists PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes, CPU only. This matters for platform design: the X3470's integrated PCIe controller handles 16 lanes directly from the CPU, while the W3565 relies on the older chipset-based arrangement typical of Socket 1366.

Both support DDR3 and ECC memory, which places them firmly in the server and workstation segment. Neither has integrated graphics. Both are end-of-life parts. The release dates are close: the X3470 launched on 2009-09-07, and the W3565 followed on 2009-10-31. Neither has an unlocked multiplier.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock?

A: The Intel Xeon W3565 has a base clock of 3.20 GHz, while the Intel Xeon X3470 has a base clock of 2.93 GHz.

Q: Which processor has a higher boost clock?

A: The Intel Xeon X3470 boosts to 3.60 GHz, which is higher than the W3565's 3.47 GHz boost.

Q: Do both processors have the same number of cores and threads?

A: Yes, both have 4 cores and 8 threads.

Q: Which processor supports triple-channel memory?

A: The Intel Xeon W3565 supports triple-channel DDR3. The Intel Xeon X3470 supports dual-channel DDR3.

Q: What is the thermal design power difference?

A: The W3565 has a TDP of 130 watts, while the X3470 has a TDP of 95 watts.

Q: Which processor wins in Cinebench R23 multi-core?

A: The Intel Xeon W3565 wins with a score of 2888, compared to 2857 for the X3470, a delta of 1.1%.

Specification Differences

| Specification | Intel Xeon W3565 | Intel Xeon X3470 |

|---|---|---|

| Base clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.93 GHz |

| Boost clock | 3.47 GHz | 3.60 GHz |

| TDP | 130 W | 95 W |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1366 | Intel Socket 1156 |

| Codename | Bloomfield | Lynnfield |

| Transistors | 731 million | 774 million |

| Die size | 263 mm² | 296 mm² |

| Memory bus | Triple-channel | Dual-channel |

| Memory bandwidth | Not recorded | 21.3 GB/s |

| PCIe | Gen 2 | Gen 2, 16 lanes (CPU only) |

| Release date | 2009-10-31 | 2009-09-07 |

| Part number | SLBEV | SLBJH |

| Launch MSRP | Not recorded | $589 |

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data is one-sided. The W3565 wins all five recorded Cinebench tests, with deltas ranging from 0.6% to 1.1%. The largest margin is 1.1%, which appears twice: once in Cinebench R20 multi-core (1212 versus 1199) and once in Cinebench R23 multi-core (2888 versus 2857). These are the two most demanding rendering workloads in the set, and they show the W3565 at its strongest relative position.

The smallest margin is 0.6%, in Cinebench R20 single-core (170 versus 169). This is a near tie. The X3470's higher boost clock may help it close the gap here, but the W3565 still comes out ahead. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the W3565 scores 290 against 287, a 1% delta. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the W3565 scores 407 against 403, also a 1% delta.

Looking at the average benchmark scores, the W3565 records 993 against 983 for the X3470. The nearest rivals for the W3565 include the Intel Core i7-965, AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, and Intel Core i7-960, all with an average score of 993 and a 0% delta. The Intel Core i3-8130U trails by 0.1% with a score of 994. For the X3470, the nearest rivals are the Intel Core i3-4370T at 983 (0% delta), the Intel Core i3-4130T at 984 (-0.1%), the Intel Core i7-875K at 984 (-0.1%), and the Intel Xeon W5590 at 986 (-0.3%).

The percentile ranks reinforce the picture. The W3565 sits at the 27th percentile of all CPUs, the X3470 at the 26th. That is a one-percentile gap, consistent with the small benchmark deltas. Neither chip is competitive with modern processors in this database, but the W3565 is consistently the stronger of the two.

The Verdict

The data supports a clear choice for the Intel Xeon W3565. It wins every recorded benchmark, holds a higher average score, and ranks one percentile higher in the overall database. Users who prioritize multi-core rendering, where the W3565 leads by 1.1% in both Cinebench R20 and R23 multi-core, should select the W3565. The triple-channel memory bus may also benefit memory-heavy workloads, though the benchmark data does not directly measure that effect.

The Intel Xeon X3470 is not without merits. Its 95-watt TDP is significantly lower than the W3565's 130-watt TDP, making it the more power-efficient option. It also has a higher boost clock at 3.60 GHz and a smaller physical footprint with Socket 1156. For systems where power draw and platform size matter more than peak performance, the X3470 is the reasonable pick.

However, the performance gap, while small, never favors the X3470. The W3565 wins single-core tests despite the X3470's boost advantage, and it wins multi-core tests by a consistent margin. The launch MSRP for the X3470 is $589, but the W3565 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database, so no price-based comparison is possible.

In summary: choose the W3565 for slightly better performance across all recorded workloads, especially multi-threaded rendering. Choose the X3470 if lower power consumption (95 watts versus 130 watts) and a dual-channel memory platform are more important than the small benchmark lead of the W3565. Both processors are end-of-life, so availability and platform compatibility should drive the final decision. The benchmark record is unambiguous: five wins for the W3565, zero for the X3470.