CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of L5408 vs L5335 among all CPUs

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

No winner declared

Too close to call

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

Intel Xeon L5408

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Xeon L5408

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon L5408

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon L5408

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 8 MB 50% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 2.13 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.34 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 50% more l2 cache per core
Newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.12 GHz vs 2 GHz More than 2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower typical power consumption 32.5W vs 40.63W 20% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual commercial energy cost 35.04 $/year vs 43.8 $/year Around 20% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 9.64 $/year vs 12.04 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Feb, 2008 vs Aug, 2007 Release date 6 months later
Front view of Intel Xeon L5335

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon L5335

Report a correction
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L5408 vs L5335

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon L5408
6,095
Xeon L5335
7,112

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon L5408
1,324
Xeon L5335
1,088

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon L5408
105,400 MB/s
Xeon L5335
81,900 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon L5408
2,987
Xeon L5335
2,756

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon L5408  vs
L5335 
Clock speed 2.13 GHz 2 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 771

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
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 40W 50W
Annual home energy cost 9.64 $/year 12.04 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 35.04 $/year 43.8 $/year
Performance per watt 3.41 pt/W 2.52 pt/W
Typical power consumption 32.5W 40.63W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,066 MHz 1,333 MHz

details

Xeon L5408  vs
L5335 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 12 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 820,000,000 582,000,000
Max CPUs 2 2
Clock multiplier 8 6
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.35V 1.1 - 1.25V
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 60°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.34 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.12 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.34 GHz 2 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 L5408
Report a correction
Intel Xeon L5335
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus