Intel Xeon X3460 vs Intel Xeon X5550 Comparison

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The recorded data shows a clean sweep for the Intel Xeon X5550 across all five benchmarks, though the margins are narrow. The X5550 wins every test by a margin between 2.0% and 2.5%. In Cinebench R15 multicore, the X5550 scores 259 against 253 for the X3460, a 2.3% advantage. The R20 multicore test repeats the pattern: 1083 versus 1057, a 2.4% gap. Single-core results tell the same story, with the X5550 ahead by 2% in R20 (152 vs. 149) and by 2.5% in R23 (364 vs. 355). The R23 multicore run shows 2580 for the X5550 versus 2518 for the X3460, again a 2.4% difference.

The consistency is striking. No benchmark in the database flips the outcome in favor of the X3460. The X5550 wins all five recorded tests, yet the largest delta is only 2.5%. This suggests the two processors are functionally equivalent in raw compute throughput, with the X5550 enjoying a small but repeatable edge. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the X5550 sits at 888, while the X3460 trails at 866, a difference of roughly 2.5%. The percentile rankings also align closely, 24th percentile for the X5550 versus 23rd for the X3460.

What makes this interesting is the clock speed relationship. The X3460 runs at a 2.80 GHz base clock and boosts to 3.47 GHz, while the X5550 operates at 2.67 GHz base and 3.07 GHz boost. The X3460 has the higher clocks on paper, yet it loses every benchmark. The database indicates that memory architecture, not raw frequency, likely drives the result. The X5550 uses triple-channel memory, while the X3460 is dual-channel. Even without a recorded memory bandwidth figure for the X5550, the channel count difference is a plausible explanation for the X5550's consistent edge.

The nearest rival data places each chip in a similar performance class. The X3460's closest competitors include the Core i7-3540M at a 0.1% lower average score, the Core i5-3470T at 0.3% higher, and the Xeon W3520 at 0.5% higher. The X5550 matches the Core i3-6100 exactly, and sits just 0.1% above the Pentium G4560T. Both processors occupy a crowded mid-field, where a few points separate dozens of parts. The X5550's 888 average score and the X3460's 866 place them adjacent in the overall distribution, yet the head-to-head data shows the X5550 never loses.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on benchmark wins, the X5550 is the clear victor. It wins all five tests, encompassing multicore and single-core workloads in Cinebench R15, R20, and R23. For users prioritizing maximum throughput in rendering tasks, the X5550 is the better choice. The multicore advantage, while small, is consistent across all three Cinebench versions. The R20 multicore and R23 multicore results both show a 2.4% lead for the X5550, indicating that the gap does not widen or shrink with newer test versions.

The X3460 does not win any benchmark in the head-to-head set. However, its higher clock speeds suggest it could be competitive in lightly threaded workloads, but the data does not support that hypothesis. The single-core tests, R20 single and R23 single, both go to the X5550 by 2% and 2.5% respectively. This is surprising given the X3460's 3.47 GHz boost versus the X5550's 3.07 GHz boost. The clock advantage of roughly 13% does not translate into a win, which points to architectural efficiency differences beyond raw frequency.

For server and workstation applications, the X5550's triple-channel memory controller is a meaningful differentiator. The X3460's dual-channel setup caps memory bandwidth at 21.3 GB/s, while the X5550's triple-channel design offers higher potential throughput, even though the exact figure is not recorded in the database. Applications that stream large datasets, such as database queries or scientific computing, would likely benefit more from the X5550. The X3460 retains a socket advantage for platforms using Intel Socket 1156, but the benchmark data does not reveal any workload where the X3460 pulls ahead.

The production status for both is end-of-life, so neither is a new purchase. The X5550 launched earlier in 2009, while the X3460 arrived later that same year. The X3460's later release and higher clocks were not enough to overcome the X5550's platform advantages. For anyone choosing between these two used parts today, the X5550 offers a slight but measurable performance lead across every recorded test.

Architecture Differences

Both processors share the Nehalem architecture and are built on Intel's 45 nm process at the same foundry. The core counts are identical at four cores and eight threads. Cache hierarchies match exactly: 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. ECC memory support is present on both, and neither integrates graphics. The transistor counts differ slightly, with the X3460 at 774 million versus 731 million for the X5550. Die sizes also vary, 296 mm² for the X3460 and 263 mm² for the X5550. The X3460's larger die and higher transistor count likely stem from its integrated dual-channel memory controller and PCIe lanes on the CPU, whereas the X5550 relies on a separate chipset for some I/O functions.

The sockets diverge significantly. The X3460 uses Intel Socket 1156, a platform designed for mainstream and entry-server parts. The X5550 uses Intel Socket 1366, which supports triple-channel memory and a wider interconnect. This is the most consequential architectural difference. The X3460's memory bus is dual-channel, delivering 21.3 GB/s of bandwidth. The X5550's memory bus is triple-channel, and while the database does not list a bandwidth number, the additional channel provides 50% more physical memory paths. For memory-intensive workloads, this is a structural advantage that clock speed cannot offset.

PCIe support also differs. The X3460 provides Gen 2, 16 lanes from the CPU only. The X5550 lists simply "Gen 2" without a lane count, suggesting a different PCIe topology that relies on the motherboard chipset. The X3460's integrated PCIe reduces latency for directly attached devices, but the X5550's triple-channel memory likely compensates in overall system throughput. The codenames reflect their lineage: Lynnfield for the X3460, Gainestown for the X5550. Both are end-of-life, and neither has an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking is not a supported path.

The launch MSRP for the X3460 was $316. The X5550 has no recorded launch MSRP in the database. The X3460 also lists a specific part number, SLBJK, while the X5550 uses SLBF5. These differences are minor in practice, but they indicate distinct production batches and platform families. The X3460's release date is September 2009, while the X5550's is March 2009, six months earlier. Despite the later release, the X3460 did not gain a performance edge.

FAQ

Q: Which processor wins the most benchmarks in the head-to-head comparison?

A: The Intel Xeon X5550 wins all five recorded benchmarks. It takes Cinebench R15 multicore, R20 multicore, R20 single-core, R23 multicore, and R23 single-core.

Q: How large is the performance gap between the two in multicore tests?

A: The X5550 leads by 2.3% in Cinebench R15 multicore and by 2.4% in both R20 and R23 multicore tests. The gap is consistent across all versions.

Q: Does the X3460 have a higher clock speed?

A: Yes, the X3460 has a 2.80 GHz base clock and a 3.47 GHz boost clock. The X5550 runs at 2.67 GHz base and 3.07 GHz boost.

Q: Why might the X5550 win despite lower clocks?

A: The X5550 uses a triple-channel memory bus, while the X3460 uses dual-channel. The X3460's memory bandwidth is recorded at 21.3 GB/s, while the X5550's triple-channel design offers more memory paths, which likely benefits performance.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the X3460 and the X5550 list ECC memory support as true.

Q: What are the average benchmark scores for each?

A: The X3460 has an average benchmark score of 866, while the X5550 scores 888. This places them at the 23rd and 24th percentiles of all CPUs, respectively.

The Verdict

The data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon X5550 is the faster processor in every recorded measurement. For users who prioritize benchmark performance, the X5550 is the correct choice. Its wins span multicore and single-core tests, and the margins, while small, are consistent. The X5550's triple-channel memory architecture provides a plausible reason for its advantage, especially in workloads that stress memory bandwidth. The X3460's higher clock speeds, 2.80 GHz base and 3.47 GHz boost, do not translate into any benchmark victory.

The X3460 is not without merit. Its integrated PCIe Gen 2 with 16 CPU lanes could benefit systems with directly attached storage or accelerators. Its dual-channel memory, capped at 21.3 GB/s, is sufficient for many server tasks. The X3460 also has a recorded launch MSRP of $316, which may inform historical cost comparisons, though the database does not list a price for the X5550. For a modern buyer considering used parts, the X5550 offers a better performance profile with no recorded downsides beyond the older release date.

The percentile rankings reinforce the closeness of these parts. The X5550 sits at the 24th percentile, one point above the X3460's 23rd. The nearest rivals for each chip are similarly matched, with the X5550 tying the Core i3-6100 and the X3460 sitting near the Core i7-3540M. Neither processor is a standout in the broader CPU landscape, but within this direct comparison, the X5550 is the winner. The verdict is straightforward: choose the X5550 for better all-around performance, and choose the X3460 only if the Socket 1156 platform or integrated PCIe lanes are requirements.

Specification Differences

The following table lists only the fields where the two processors differ:

| Specification | Intel Xeon X3460 | Intel Xeon X5550 |

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

| Base Clock | 2.80 GHz | 2.67 GHz |

| Boost Clock | 3.47 GHz | 3.07 GHz |

| Socket | Intel Socket 1156 | Intel Socket 1366 |

| Codename | Lynnfield | Gainestown |

| Transistors | 774 million | 731 million |

| Die Size | 296 mm² | 263 mm² |

| Memory Bus | Dual-channel | Triple-channel |

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

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

| Release Date | 2009-09-07 | 2009-03-29 |

| Launch MSRP | $316 | Not recorded |

| Part Number | SLBJK | SLBF5 |

| Cinebench R15 Multicore | 253 | 259 |

| Cinebench R20 Multicore | 1057 | 1083 |

| Cinebench R20 Single-core | 149 | 152 |

| Cinebench R23 Multicore | 2518 | 2580 |

| Cinebench R23 Single-core | 355 | 364 |

Both processors share the same 45 nm process, four cores, eight threads, 8 MB L3 cache, 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, DDR3 memory support, ECC capability, TDP of 95 watts, and integrated graphics absent. The X5550's triple-channel memory and the X3460's higher clocks are the defining trade-offs, with the benchmark data clearly favoring the X5550.