CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of L5639 vs 3337U

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

Winner
Intel Core i5 3337U 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 3337U  based on its .

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS
Front view of Intel Core i5 3337U

Intel Core i5 3337U

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon 5600 L5639

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon 5600 L5639

Report a correction
More l3 cache 12 MB vs 3 MB 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 2.13 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
More l2 cache 2 MB vs 0.5 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly better geekbench (32-bit) score 9,734 vs 4,118 More than 2.2x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.03 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Around 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
More cores 6 vs 2 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
Better PassMark score 4,858 vs 3,161 Around 55% better PassMark score
More l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1.5 MB/core Around 35% more l3 cache per core
More threads 12 vs 4 Three times as many threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.13 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
More l2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core Around 35% more l2 cache per core
Front view of Intel Core i5 3337U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3337U

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Lower typical power consumption 13.81W vs 48.75W 3.5x lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,262 vs 842 Around 50% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better performance per watt 23.5 pt/W vs 13.16 pt/W Around 80% better performance per watt
Lower annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year vs 52.56 $/year 3.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year vs 14.45 $/year 3.5x lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon 5600 L5639 vs Core i5 3337U

GeekBench

Passmark

Xeon 5600 L5639 Core i5 3337U @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon 5600 L5639  vs
Core i5 3337U 
Clock speed 2.13 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Hexa core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1366
BGA 1023
Is hyperthreaded Yes Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 60W 17W
Annual home energy cost 14.45 $/year 4.1 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 52.56 $/year 14.89 $/year
Performance per watt 13.16 pt/W 23.5 pt/W
Typical power consumption 48.75W 13.81W

details

Xeon 5600 L5639  vs
Core i5 3337U 
Threads 12 4
L2 cache 2 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 12 MB 3 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nms 22 nms
Max CPUs 2 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.03 GHz 2.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.13 GHz 1.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.03 GHz 2.7 GHz

bus

Architecture QPI DMI
Number of links 2 1
Transfer rate 5,860 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Xeon 5600 L5639
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 3337U
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus