Intel Xeon X3450 vs Intel Xeon X5470 Comparison

The Intel Xeon X5470 and Intel Xeon X3450 are both end-of-life server processors from Intel, but they represent two distinctly different architectural eras. The X5470 is a Core 2-based part (Harpertown) built for Socket 771, while the X3450 is a Nehalem-based part (Lynnfield) for Socket 1156. Despite these generational differences, benchmark results show they are remarkably close in performance, with the X5470 holding a razor-thin edge in every tested workload. This analysis breaks down their architectural differences, head-to-head results, and specification deltas to determine which processor suits which workload.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher average benchmark score?

A: The Intel Xeon X5470 has an average benchmark score of 839, while the Intel Xeon X3450 scores 837. The X5470 leads by a margin of 2 points, which corresponds to a 0.3% delta as listed in its nearestRivals data.

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

A: In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the X5470 scores 2440 versus the X3450's 2431, a 0.4% advantage for the X5470. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors score exactly 245, resulting in a tie with a 0% delta.

Q: Do the processors differ in single-core performance?

A: Yes, but only marginally. In Cinebench R23 single-core, the X5470 scores 344 against the X3450's 343, a 0.3% delta. In Cinebench R20 single-core, both score 144, resulting in a 0% delta.

Q: What are the core and thread counts for each processor?

A: The X5470 has 4 cores and 4 threads. The X3450 also has 4 cores but doubles the thread count to 8 threads, thanks to Hyper-Threading support in the Nehalem architecture.

Q: What is the launch MSRP for each processor?

A: The Intel Xeon X5470 has a launch MSRP of $1386. The Intel Xeon X3450 has a launch MSRP of $241.

Q: Which processor has a higher base clock speed?

A: The X5470 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz, which is significantly higher than the X3450's base clock of 2.67 GHz. However, the X3450 features a boost clock of 3.20 GHz, which partially closes the gap.

Architecture Differences

The architectural divide between these two Xeons is fundamental. The X5470 is built on the Core 2 microarchitecture, codenamed Harpertown, and fabricated on Intel's 45 nm process node. It features a dual-die design with a total die size of 2x 107 mm², containing 820 million transistors. Its cache hierarchy consists of 64 KB of L1 per core and 6 MB of L2 per die, with no L3 cache present. This processor operates on the Intel Socket 771 platform and supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory, depending on the motherboard.

In contrast, the X3450 is based on the newer Nehalem architecture, codenamed Lynnfield. It also uses a 45 nm process but integrates a single 296 mm² die with 774 million transistors. The cache layout differs substantially: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and an 8 MB shared L3 cache. The X3450 uses the Intel Socket 1156 and exclusively supports DDR3 memory with a rated memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s.

The most significant architectural advantage for the X3450 is its support for simultaneous multithreading. With 4 cores and 8 threads, it can process twice as many threads as the X5470, which is limited to 4 threads. This is a crucial difference for heavily threaded workloads, even if the benchmark scores do not reflect a dramatic advantage. The X5470 compensates with a higher base clock of 3.33 GHz versus 2.67 GHz, though the X3450's boost clock of 3.20 GHz narrows that gap under single-threaded load.

Another key distinction is the memory controller integration. The X3450, being a Nehalem part, includes an integrated dual-channel memory controller with a specified 21.3 GB/s bandwidth. The X5470 relies on the motherboard's memory controller, which explains its more flexible memory support. Both processors support ECC memory, but the X5470's memory support is described as "depends on motherboard," making it platform-dependent.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The benchmark data paints a picture of near-parity, with the X5470 winning all five listed comparisons, but by extremely narrow margins. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, both processors achieve an identical score of 245. The delta is 0%, meaning there is no measurable difference in this older rendering test. This is notable because it suggests that the X3450's extra threads do not provide a benefit in this particular workload, possibly due to the X5470's higher clock speed offsetting the thread advantage.

Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the X5470 scores 1024 against the X3450's 1021, a 0.3% advantage. This is a 3-point difference, which is within the margin of error for most benchmarking, but it still favors the older Core 2 part. The single-core R20 test shows a perfect tie at 144 for both processors. This is a strong indicator that per-core IPC is essentially identical between the two architectures in this test, with the X5470's higher base clock being negated by the X3450's boost clock.

The most recent test, Cinebench R23, shows the largest delta between the two. In multi-core, the X5470 scores 2440 versus 2431 for the X3450, a 0.4% advantage. This 9-point gap is the widest in any benchmark. In single-core, the X5470 leads 344 to 343, a 0.3% delta. Across all tests, the X5470 wins 5 benchmarks and the X3450 wins 0, but the average delta across all tests is only about 0.2%.

These results are consistent with the nearestRivals data. The X5470's average score of 839 places it 0.3% ahead of the X3450's 837. Both processors sit at the 22nd percentile of all CPUs, meaning they are in the lower quartile of modern processor performance. The X5470's nearest rivals include the Intel Core i5-3380M (838, +0.1%), Intel Core i7-920 (840, -0.1%), and Intel Core i5-5200U (838, +0.2%). The X3450's nearest rivals are nearly identical, with the Intel Core i5-5200U (838, -0.1%), Intel Core i5-3380M (838, -0.2%), and Intel Core i5-3360M (835, +0.2%).

Specification Differences

The specification sheets reveal distinct profiles for each processor. The X5470 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz with no boost clock available, while the X3450 has a base clock of 2.67 GHz and a boost clock of 3.20 GHz. Thermal design power differs significantly: the X5470 has a TDP of 120 watts, whereas the X3450 is more power-efficient at 95 watts.

The socket and platform requirements are incompatible. The X5470 uses Intel Socket 771, while the X3450 uses Intel Socket 1156. This means they cannot be used interchangeably on any motherboard. The process nodes are identical at 45 nm, but the transistor counts differ: 820 million for the X5470 versus 774 million for the X3450. The die sizes also diverge, with the X5470 using a dual-die configuration of 2x 107 mm² and the X3450 using a single 296 mm² die.

Cache configurations are a major differentiator. The X5470 has 6 MB of L2 per die with no L3 cache, while the X3450 has 256 KB of L2 per core and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. The L1 cache is the same at 64 KB per core. Memory support varies, with the X5470 supporting DDR2 and DDR3 depending on the motherboard, and the X3450 supporting only DDR3. The X3450 has a specified memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s, while the X5470 has no listed memory bandwidth figure.

Both processors lack integrated graphics and have locked multipliers. The X5470 has a part number of SLBBF, while the X3450 is SLBLD. Release dates are also different: the X5470 was released on September 7, 2008, and the X3450 was released exactly one year later on September 7, 2009. The launch MSRP values are dramatically different, with the X5470 at $1386 and the X3450 at $241.

The Verdict

The data shows that the Intel Xeon X5470 is the faster processor in every benchmark tested, but the margins are so small that they are practically negligible. The X5470 wins all 5 head-to-head comparisons, with deltas ranging from 0% to 0.4%. Its average benchmark score of 839 is 2 points higher than the X3450's 837, a 0.3% difference. For users seeking the absolute maximum performance in Cinebench workloads, the X5470 is the statistically superior choice.

However, the X3450 offers several advantages that the benchmark scores do not capture. Its 8 threads versus 4 threads provide better multitasking and threaded workload potential, even if Cinebench does not reflect a benefit. Its 95-watt TDP is 25 watts lower than the X5470's 120 watts, making it a more power-efficient option for dense server deployments. The X3450's support for DDR3 memory with a specified 21.3 GB/s bandwidth is also a more modern memory interface.

The architectural differences suggest that the X3450 should be the better long-term investment. Its Nehalem architecture with an integrated memory controller and shared L3 cache is a more advanced design. The X5470's higher clock speed and simpler cache hierarchy give it a slight edge in legacy single-threaded tasks, but the X3450's boost clock of 3.20 GHz closes most of that gap.

For users building a system today with these end-of-life parts, the choice depends on platform preference and workload characteristics. If the workload is single-threaded or lightly threaded, the X5470's higher base clock and consistent 0.3-0.4% leads in single-core tests make it the better pick. If the workload is heavily threaded or power consumption is a concern, the X3450's 8 threads and lower TDP are more attractive, despite losing the benchmark comparisons. The X3450's launch MSRP of $241 also makes it a more accessible entry point, though pricing should not be the primary factor given the benchmark parity. Ultimately, the data indicates that these two processors are functionally equivalent in rendering performance, and the decision should be driven by platform availability and thermal constraints.