Xeon E5450 vs Core i7
Aggregate performance score
Core i7 outperforms Xeon E5450 by a considerable 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core i7 and Xeon E5450 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1680 | 1982 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.44 | 0.05 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Release date | 1 October 2023 (less than a year ago) | 1 October 2007 (16 years ago) |
| Current price | $269 | $49 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Core i7 has 10780% better value for money than Xeon E5450.
Detailed specifications
Core i7 and Xeon E5450 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
| Base clock speed | no data | 3 GHz |
| L3 cache | no data | 12 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | no data | 45 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 67 °C |
| 64 bit support | - | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | no data | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.35V |
Compatibility
Information on Core i7 and Xeon E5450 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
| Socket | no data | LGA771 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | no data | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7 and Xeon E5450. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | no data | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | no data | - |
| Idle States | no data | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | no data | + |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | + |
| FSB parity | no data | + |
| Status | no data | Discontinued |
Security technologies
Core i7 and Xeon E5450 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | no data | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7 and Xeon E5450 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | - |
Synthetic benchmark performance
Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.
Combined synthetic benchmark score
This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.
Core i7 outperforms Xeon E5450 by 48% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Passmark
Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Core i7 outperforms Xeon E5450 by 198% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.46 | 1.66 |
| Recency | 1 October 2023 | 1 October 2007 |
The Core i7 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5450 in performance tests.
Note that Core i7 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5450 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7 and Xeon E5450, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.
