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 |
![]() | 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 |
![]() | 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 |
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 |
| ![]() | Intel Core2 Duo E8600CPUBoss Winner |
| |||||||
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 |
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 ![]() | Intel Core2 Duo E8600 ![]() |
![]() | 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 | ||
![]() | 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 | ||