Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8600
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8600 based on its single-core performance.
See full details Intel Xeon E5320 vs Core2 Duo E8600 |
Released November, 2006
Intel Xeon E5320
- 1.86 GHz
- Quad core
4.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5320
 | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much lower typical power consumption 65W |
| | Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 6,799 | | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 |
VS
Released July, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8600
- 3.33 GHz
- Dual core
4.6 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core2 Duo E8600
| | Much higher clock speed 3.33 GHz | | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm |
| | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core | | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.61 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5320 vs E8600 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 | |
| 4.6 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core2 Duo E8600CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 6 MB | Around 35% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much lower typical power consumption | 65W | vs | 120.65W | More than 45% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 6,799 | vs | 3,344 | More than 2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | vs | 47.3 $/year | 2.5x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | vs | 113.62 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher clock speed | 3.33 GHz | vs | 1.86 GHz | Around 80% higher clock speed | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 50% more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.61 GHz | vs | 2.81 GHz | Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,373 | vs | 718 | More than 90% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.6 GHz | vs | 1.87 GHz | Around 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.4 °C | vs | 66 °C | Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2008 | vs | Nov, 2006 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5320 vs Core2 Duo E8600
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5320 | vs | Core2 Duo E8600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 3.33 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 771 | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 80W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | 47.3 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | 113.62 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.52 pt/W | 1.1 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 65W | 120.65W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 1,333 MHz | |
details | Xeon E5320 | vs | Core2 Duo E8600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
| Transistor count | 582,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 7 | 10 | |
| Voltage range | 1 - 1.5V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 66°C | Unknown - 72.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.81 GHz | 4.61 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.87 GHz | 4.6 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.81 GHz | 4.61 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 | |
 Intel Xeon E5320  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo E8600 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $285 | $179 | |
| E8600 vs E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $285 | ||
| E8600 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $285 | $339 | |
| E8600 vs Q9650 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $285 | $200 | |
| E8600 vs E8500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $285 | $287 | |
| E8600 vs Q9550 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $285 | $125 | |
| E8600 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $285 | $179 | |
| E8600 vs Q8400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
