Intel Xeon X3440 vs Intel Xeon X3450 Comparison
Intel Xeon X3440
Xeon X3450
PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS
Analysis: Intel Xeon X3440 vs Intel Xeon X3450
Head-to-Head Benchmarks
The benchmark database places the Intel Xeon X3450 and Intel Xeon X3440 in a closely matched contest, with the X3450 taking all five recorded head-to-head wins. The margins, however, are consistently narrow, ranging from 2.7% to 2.9% across all tests. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the X3450 scores 245 against 238 for the X3440, a 2.9% advantage. The R20 multi-core run shows a similar pattern: 1021 for the X3450 versus 994 for the X3440, a 2.7% gap.
Single-core results mirror the multi-core trend. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the X3450 posts 144, while the X3440 manages 140, again a 2.9% edge. The R23 single-core test records 343 for the X3450 and 334 for the X3440, a 2.7% difference. These consistent deltas across both single-threaded and multi-threaded workloads suggest the X3450's advantage is uniform rather than workload-specific. The largest relative win for the X3450 comes in R15 multi-core and R20 single-core, both at 2.9%. The smallest margins, 2.7%, appear in R20 multi-core, R23 multi-core, and R23 single-core.
The average benchmark score tells the same story. The X3450 averages 837 across the database's benchmark suite, while the X3440 averages 815. That is a 22-point gap, roughly 2.7%, which aligns with the head-to-head deltas. The X3450's nearest rival in the database is the Intel Core i5-5200U, which scores 838, just 0.1% ahead. The X3440's closest competitor is the Intel Core i5-L16G7 at 816, only 0.1% above it. Both CPUs sit at the 22nd percentile of all recorded processors, indicating they belong to the same performance tier within the database's broader ranking.
Neither chip is a standout in absolute terms; both occupy the lower quartile of the database's CPU distribution. But within this pairing, the X3450 is the definitive winner, and its margins, while modest, are consistent across every measured test. There are no reversals, no workload where the X3440 pulls ahead. The data shows a clear, if incremental, performance hierarchy.
FAQ
Q: Which processor has the higher base clock speed?
A: The Intel Xeon X3450 runs at a base clock of 2.67 GHz, while the Intel Xeon X3440 operates at 2.53 GHz.
Q: What is the boost clock difference between the two chips?
A: The X3450 boosts up to 3.20 GHz, whereas the X3440 reaches 2.93 GHz. This 0.27 GHz gap is the primary driver behind the X3450's consistent benchmark lead.
Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?
A: Yes, both the X3450 and X3440 support ECC memory. They also share the same dual-channel DDR3 memory bus and a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s.
Q: How do the two chips compare in single-core performance?
A: In Cinebench R20 single-core, the X3450 scores 144, and the X3440 scores 140. In R23 single-core, the X3450 records 343 against 334. The X3450 leads by roughly 2.7% to 2.9% in both tests.
Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?
A: The X3450 has an average benchmark score of 837, while the X3440 averages 815. This places both at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database.
Q: Are there any benchmark tests where the X3440 wins?
A: No. Across all five recorded head-to-head tests, the X3450 wins every encounter. The X3440's best result is a 2.7% deficit, never a victory.
Architecture Differences
Both processors are built on the same Nehalem architecture with the Lynnfield codename, fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process node. They share identical transistor counts of 774 million and the same die size of 296 mm². The cache hierarchy is also identical: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both support DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. ECC memory is supported on both. PCIe connectivity is the same: Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU only. Neither chip includes integrated graphics, and both are unlocked in terms of multiplier? No, both have locked multipliers.
The fundamental architectural differences are confined to clock speeds. The X3450 has a 2.67 GHz base clock and a 3.20 GHz boost clock. The X3440 runs at 2.53 GHz base and 2.93 GHz boost. That is the entire distinction in compute capability. The higher clocks on the X3450 translate directly into the observed benchmark deltas. Since all other architectural parameters, cores, threads, cache sizes, memory support, and process node, are unchanged, the performance gap is purely a function of frequency.
The release dates are identical: both launched on 2009-09-07. Their part numbers differ, SLBLD for the X3450 and SLBLF for the X3440, but this is a minor production identifier. Both are marked as end-of-life and belong to the server/workstation market segment. The socket is Intel Socket 1156 for both. Power consumption is also equal at 95 W TDP, meaning the X3450 delivers its modest performance advantage without any additional thermal cost.
The Verdict
The data points to a simple conclusion: the Intel Xeon X3450 is the superior processor in this pairing. It wins all five head-to-head benchmarks, with margins between 2.7% and 2.9%. Its average benchmark score of 837 is 22 points above the X3440's 815. In every recorded workload, Cinebench R15, R20, and R23, both multi-core and single-core, the X3450 leads. There is no scenario in the database where the X3440 overtakes it.
Who should pick the X3450? Anyone comparing these two specific chips and seeking the higher performance should choose the X3450. The advantage is consistent, and the 95 W TDP is identical, so there is no power penalty. The X3450 also holds a higher launch MSRP of $241, but the benchmark data justifies the premium. The X3440, with a launch MSRP of $215, is the lower-cost option, but it is also the lower-performing one.
Who should pick the X3440? The data suggests only those who require the exact part number SLBLF or have a specific compatibility need for that model. From a pure performance standpoint, the X3440 offers no benefits over the X3450. Both share the same architecture, cache, memory support, and socket. The X3440's only distinguishing feature is its slower clocks, which result in lower scores across every test. For a server or workstation workload, the X3450 is the clear choice.
Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs in the database, so neither is a high-performance part by modern standards. But within this comparison, the X3450 is the definitive winner. The benchmark record is unambiguous: five wins for the X3450, zero for the X3440.
Specification Differences
| Field | Intel Xeon X3450 | Intel Xeon X3440 |
|---|---|---|
| Base Clock | 2.67 GHz | 2.53 GHz |
| Boost Clock | 3.20 GHz | 2.93 GHz |
| Launch MSRP | $241 | $215 |
| Part Number | SLBLD | SLBLF |
All other recorded specifications are identical between the two chips. Both have 4 cores and 8 threads. Both use 95 W TDP. Both feature the same cache layout: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Both support dual-channel DDR3 with 21.3 GB/s bandwidth and ECC memory. Both use Intel Socket 1156 and PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes. Both are built on the 45 nm Nehalem architecture with the Lynnfield codename, with 774 million transistors and a 296 mm² die size. Both launched on 2009-09-07, are marked end-of-life, and lack integrated graphics. The only differences in the database are the clock speeds, the launch MSRP, and the part number. The X3450's higher clocks drive its benchmark advantage, while the higher launch MSRP reflects its position at the top of this specific pairing.