CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5310 vs 4100 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

5.4

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
AMD FX 4100 

CPUBoss recommends the AMD FX 4100  based on its performance, single-core performance and value.

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 AMD FX 4100

AMD FX 4100

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5310

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5310

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 4 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 5,971 vs 5,176 More than 15% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Much lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year vs 34.18 $/year Around 45% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year vs 114.41 $/year Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 4100

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 4100

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 8.44 pt/$ vs 0.5 pt/$ Around 16.8x better performance per dollar
Much higher clock speed 3.6 GHz vs 1.6 GHz 2.2x higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.66 GHz vs 2.19 GHz Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 1,827 vs 887 More than 2x better geekbench 3 single core score
Much better performance per watt 6.46 pt/W vs 1.36 pt/W Around 4.8x better performance per watt
Newer Oct, 2011 vs Nov, 2006 Release date over 4 years later
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.99 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 3x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Higher Maximum operating temperature 70.5 °C vs 66 °C More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5310 vs FX 4100

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5310
5,971
FX 4100
5,176

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

FX 4100
1,827

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5310
81,900 MB/s
FX 4100
2,150,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5310
2,920
FX 4100
4,993

GeekBench

Xeon E5310
2,920
FX 4100
6,919

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5310
2,264
FX 4100
4,051

PassMark (Single Core)

FX 4100
1,221

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5310  vs
FX 4100 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 3.6 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 771
AM3+

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
F16C
MMX
XOP
AVX
SSE3
SSE
ABM
CLMUL
AMD64
SSE4.1
FMA4
SSE4.2
CVT16
AMD-V
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 80W 95W
Annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year 34.18 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year 114.41 $/year
Performance per watt 1.36 pt/W 6.46 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC No Yes

details

Xeon E5310  vs
FX 4100 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 582,000,000 1,200,000,000
Max CPUs 2 1
Voltage range 1 - 1.5V 1.14 - 1.55V
Operating temperature Unknown - 66°C Unknown - 70.5°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.19 GHz 4.66 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz 4.99 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.19 GHz 4.66 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A

bus

Architecture FSB HyperTransport 3.1
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,066 MHz 3,200 MHz
Intel Xeon E5310
Report a correction
AMD FX 4100
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus