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 Celeron G1610T

Intel Celeron G1610T

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5405

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5405

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 1 MB 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 6x more l2 cache per core
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
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 3,971 vs 3,061 Around 30% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.96 GHz vs 2.3 GHz Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron G1610T

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron G1610T

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per dollar 3.08 pt/$ vs 0.48 pt/$ Around 6.5x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher clock speed 2.3 GHz vs 2 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 65W 2.3x lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Nov, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,710 vs 1,095 More than 55% better geekbench 3 single core score
Better performance per watt 3.69 pt/W vs 1.39 pt/W Around 2.8x better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 19.27 $/year 2.3x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 70.08 $/year 2.3x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5405 vs Celeron G1610T

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

Xeon E5405
85,200 MB/s
Celeron G1610T
119,750 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5405  vs
Celeron G1610T 
Clock speed 2 GHz 2.3 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 771
LGA 1155

features

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

power consumption

TDP 80W 35W
Annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 1.39 pt/W 3.69 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W 28.44W

details

Xeon E5405  vs
Celeron G1610T 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 12 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 6 23

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.38 GHz 2.44 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.96 GHz 2.3 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.38 GHz 2.44 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,050 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Xeon E5405
Report a correction
Intel Celeron G1610T
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus