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 i3 3220

Intel Core i3 3220

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon L5310

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon L5310

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 0.5 MB 16x 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 0.25 MB/core 8x 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
Slightly lower typical power consumption 40.63W vs 44.69W Around 10% lower typical power consumption
Slightly lower annual commercial energy cost 43.8 $/year vs 48.18 $/year Around 10% lower annual commercial energy cost
Slightly lower annual home energy cost 12.04 $/year vs 13.25 $/year Around 10% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i3 3220

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3220

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 2x higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better performance per dollar 1.18 pt/$ vs 0.3 pt/$ Around 4x better performance per dollar
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,764 vs 641 More than 2.8x better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.43 GHz vs 2.3 GHz Around 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Sep, 2012 vs Mar, 2007 Release date over 5 years later
Better PassMark score 4,229 vs 2,274 More than 85% better PassMark score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.46 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Better performance per watt 2.69 pt/W vs 1.65 pt/W Around 65% better performance per watt
Higher Maximum operating temperature 65.3 °C vs 60 °C Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L5310 vs Core i3 3220

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon L5310
2,274
Core i3 3220
4,229

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon L5310  vs
Core i3 3220 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 3.3 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
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 50W 55W
Annual home energy cost 12.04 $/year 13.25 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 43.8 $/year 48.18 $/year
Performance per watt 1.65 pt/W 2.69 pt/W
Typical power consumption 40.63W 44.69W

details

Xeon L5310  vs
Core i3 3220 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 8 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 6 33
Operating temperature Unknown - 60°C Unknown - 65.3°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.3 GHz 3.43 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz 3.46 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.3 GHz 3.43 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 2500
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 L5310
Report a correction
Intel Core i3 3220
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus