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 2500

Intel Core i5 2500

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5462

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5462

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 0.25 MB/core 12x more l2 cache per core
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Lower typical power consumption 65W vs 77.19W More than 15% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 15% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 2.8 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per watt 9.04 pt/W vs 2.28 pt/W Around 4x better performance per watt
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,857 vs 1,186 More than 55% better PassMark (Single core) score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Better PassMark score 6,257 vs 3,940 Around 60% better PassMark score
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Nov, 2007 Release date over 3 years later
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.7 GHz vs 3.11 GHz Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.6 °C vs 67 °C Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.21 GHz vs 2.8 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5462 vs Core i5 2500

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5462
10,603
Core i5 2500
8,816

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5462
1,541
Core i5 2500
2,796

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5462
114,000 MB/s
Core i5 2500
2,410,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5462
5,048
Core i5 2500
8,767

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5462
5,612
Core i5 2500
9,632

GeekBench

Xeon E5462
7,501
Core i5 2500
11,542

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5462
3,940
Core i5 2500
6,257

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon E5462
1,186
Core i5 2500
1,857

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5462  vs
Core i5 2500 
Clock speed 2.8 GHz 3.3 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 771
LGA 1155

features

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

power consumption

TDP 80W 95W
Annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 2.28 pt/W 9.04 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W 77.19W

details

Xeon E5462  vs
Core i5 2500 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 12 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 7 33
Operating temperature Unknown - 67°C Unknown - 72.6°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.11 GHz 3.7 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.8 GHz 4.21 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.11 GHz 3.7 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 2000
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 850 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,100 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Xeon E5462
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 2500
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus