Intel Xeon X3460 vs Intel Xeon X5492 Comparison

The Verdict

The data shows a narrow but consistent victory for the Intel Xeon X3460 across every recorded benchmark. The X3460 wins all five head-to-head Cinebench tests, with margins ranging from 1.6% to 2.1%. For builders choosing between these two end-of-life server processors, the X3460 is the safer pick for modern multi-threaded workloads, as its Hyper-Threading (8 threads vs 4 threads) gives it an edge in tasks that scale with thread count. The X5492, despite its higher 3.40 GHz base clock and larger per-die L2 cache, cannot overcome the X3460's architectural advantages. However, the X5492 remains a viable option for legacy Socket 771 systems where the platform, not raw performance, dictates the choice. In short, the X3460 is the better all-around performer; the X5492 is only preferable if your motherboard and memory constraints force the older platform.

Architecture Differences

The two processors come from different Intel microarchitectures. The X3460 is built on the Nehalem architecture (codename Lynnfield), while the X5492 uses the older Core 2 architecture (codename Harpertown). Both are manufactured on Intel's 45 nm process node, but the similarities end there.

The X3460 packs 774 million transistors on a single 296 mm² die. It features 4 cores and 8 threads, with a base clock of 2.80 GHz and a boost clock of 3.47 GHz. Its cache hierarchy includes 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a shared 8 MB L3 cache. It supports DDR3 memory in a dual-channel configuration, with a memory bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. It also supports PCIe Gen 2 with 16 lanes from the CPU.

The X5492, in contrast, uses a dual-die design: two 107 mm² dies, totaling 820 million transistors. It has 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 3.40 GHz and no boost clock. Its L1 cache is the same 64 KB per core, but L2 is 6 MB per die, and there is no L3 cache. It supports both DDR2 and DDR3 memory in dual-channel mode, though the database does not record a memory bandwidth figure for it. It also supports PCIe Gen 2, but the lane count is not specified.

The architectural split is clear: the X3460 relies on a unified die with a shared L3 cache and simultaneous multi-threading (SMT), while the X5492 relies on higher clock speeds and a larger per-die L2 cache without SMT. The X3460's Nehalem design is more modern in terms of memory controller and threading capabilities.

Where Each One Wins

The benchmark data leaves no ambiguity. The X3460 wins every recorded test. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, it scores 253 versus the X5492's 249, a 1.6% lead. In Cinebench R20 multi-core, the gap widens slightly to 1.7% (1057 vs 1039). The single-core tests show similar margins: R20 single-core is 149 vs 146 (2.1% lead), and R23 single-core is 355 vs 349 (1.7% lead). The R23 multi-core test also shows a 1.7% advantage (2518 vs 2475).

The X3460 wins across the board, but the margins are small. In practical terms, neither processor is dramatically faster than the other. The X3460's advantage comes from its extra threads (8 vs 4), which help in multi-threaded rendering workloads, and its slightly better single-core efficiency, likely due to the newer Nehalem architecture. The X5492's higher base clock (3.40 GHz vs 2.80 GHz) does not translate into a win in any recorded benchmark, suggesting that the X3460's architecture is more efficient per clock.

For users with a Socket 1156 motherboard and DDR3 memory, the X3460 is the obvious choice. For users locked into a Socket 771 platform with DDR2 memory, the X5492 is the only option in this comparison, and its scores are close enough that it remains a competent part for its era.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more threads?

A: The Intel Xeon X3460 has 8 threads (4 cores with Hyper-Threading), while the Intel Xeon X5492 has 4 threads (4 cores without Hyper-Threading).

Q: Is the X5492 faster in single-core tests?

A: No. The X3460 wins all single-core tests in the database. In Cinebench R20 single-core, the X3460 scores 149 versus 146 for the X5492, a 2.1% lead.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the X3460 and the X5492 support ECC memory.

Q: What is the memory support difference?

A: The X3460 supports DDR3 only, in dual-channel mode, with a recorded bandwidth of 21.3 GB/s. The X5492 supports both DDR2 and DDR3 in dual-channel mode, but no bandwidth figure is recorded.

Q: Which processor has a larger cache?

A: The X3460 has 8 MB of shared L3 cache and 256 KB of L2 per core. The X5492 has no L3 cache but has 6 MB of L2 per die (two dies). The X5492 also has a higher transistor count (820 million vs 774 million).

Q: Are both processors end-of-life?

A: Yes, both are marked as end-of-life in the database. The X3460 was released in September 2009, and the X5492 was released in September 2008.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head data shows a clean sweep for the X3460. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the X3460 scores 253 against the X5492's 249, a 1.6% lead. This is the smallest margin of the five tests. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the X3460 scores 1057 against 1039, a 1.7% lead. The single-core tests are more decisive: R20 single-core shows 149 vs 146, a 2.1% lead, which is the largest margin recorded. R23 single-core shows 355 vs 349, a 1.7% lead. The R23 multi-core test closes the set with 2518 vs 2475, again a 1.7% lead.

The pattern is consistent. The X3460 is ahead in every test, but the differences are small enough that they could be considered within run-to-run variance for some workloads. However, the consistency of the lead across five separate tests suggests a real, if modest, performance advantage. The X3460's 8 threads give it a structural edge in multi-threaded rendering, and its Nehalem architecture appears to provide better single-thread performance per clock than the Core 2-based X5492, despite the latter's higher base clock.

The X5492's best result is its R15 multi-core score of 249, which is only 4 points behind the X3460. In the R20 and R23 multi-core tests, the gap is 18 and 43 points, respectively. The single-core gaps are 3 and 6 points. For a user upgrading from a truly ancient system, either processor would be a massive step up, but the data says the X3460 is the stronger part.

Specification Differences

The key specification differences between the two processors are as follows:

• Threads: The X3460 has 8 threads; the X5492 has 4 threads.
• Base clock: The X3460 runs at 2.80 GHz; the X5492 runs at 3.40 GHz.
• Boost clock: The X3460 has a boost clock of 3.47 GHz; the X5492 has no boost clock.
• TDP: The X3460 is rated at 95 W; the X5492 is rated at 150 W.
• Socket: The X3460 uses Intel Socket 1156; the X5492 uses Intel Socket 771.
• Architecture: The X3460 is Nehalem (Lynnfield); the X5492 is Core 2 (Harpertown).
• Transistors: The X3460 has 774 million; the X5492 has 820 million.
• Die size: The X3460 is a single 296 mm² die; the X5492 is two 107 mm² dies.
• L2 cache: The X3460 has 256 KB per core; the X5492 has 6 MB per die.
• L3 cache: The X3460 has 8 MB shared; the X5492 has none.
• Memory support: The X3460 supports DDR3 only; the X5492 supports DDR2 and DDR3.
• Memory bandwidth: The X3460 has a recorded 21.3 GB/s; the X5492 has no recorded figure.
• PCIe: The X3460 is Gen 2 with 16 lanes (CPU only); the X5492 is Gen 2 with unspecified lanes.
• Launch MSRP: The X3460 launched at $316; the X5492 launched at $1493.
• Release date: The X3460 was released in September 2009; the X5492 was released in September 2008.

The X5492 has a higher base clock, more transistors, and a higher launch price, but the X3460 counters with boost clock, more threads, a shared L3 cache, lower TDP, and a smaller process footprint (single die vs dual die). The average benchmark score also favors the X3460: 866 versus 852. Both processors sit at the 23rd percentile of all CPUs in the database, meaning they are in the same performance tier overall.