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 2500K

Intel Core i5 2500K

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 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much lower typical power consumption 40.63W vs 112.55W 2.8x lower typical power consumption
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
Much lower annual home energy cost 12.04 $/year vs 41.29 $/year 3.4x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 43.8 $/year vs 110.03 $/year 2.5x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500K

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 2x higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per dollar 4.1 pt/$ vs 0.3 pt/$ More than 13.5x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.98 GHz vs 2.3 GHz Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,863 vs 641 Around 3x better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better performance per watt 6.79 pt/W vs 1.65 pt/W More than 4x better performance per watt
Better PassMark score 6,383 vs 2,274 More than 2.8x better PassMark score
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Mar, 2007 Release date over 3 years later
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.6 °C vs 60 °C More than 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 3x better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L5310 vs Core i5 2500K

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon L5310  vs
Core i5 2500K 
Clock speed 1.6 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 No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 50W 95W
Annual home energy cost 12.04 $/year 41.29 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 43.8 $/year 110.03 $/year
Performance per watt 1.65 pt/W 6.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 40.63W 112.55W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

Xeon L5310  vs
Core i5 2500K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 8 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 582,000,000 1,160,000,000
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 6 33
Voltage range 1.1 - 1.25V 1.2 - 1.5V
Operating temperature Unknown - 60°C 5 - 72.6°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.3 GHz 4.98 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.6 GHz 4.88 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.3 GHz 4.98 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Latest DirectX N/A 10.1
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 850 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,100 MHz
3DMark06 N/A 5,275
Intel Xeon L5310
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 2500K
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus