Winner
Intel Xeon L5410
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon L5410 based on its performance, single-core performance and power consumption.
See full details Intel Xeon L5410 vs Core2 Quad Q6600 |
Released March, 2008
Intel Xeon L5410
- 2.33 GHz
- Quad core
4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon L5410
 | Much more l2 cache 12 MB | | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm |
| | Much lower typical power consumption 40.63W | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
VS
Released January, 2007
Intel Core2 Quad Q6600
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
4.5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core2 Quad Q6600
| | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 102,800 MB/s | | Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 4,490 |
| | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.52 GHz | | Higher Maximum operating temperature 62.2 °C |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of L5410 vs Q6600 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 | |
| 4.5 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Xeon L5410CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 40.63W | vs | 85.31W | 2.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 50% 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 | 25.29 $/year | 2.1x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 43.8 $/year | vs | 91.98 $/year | 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Newer | Mar, 2008 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| |||||||
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 102,800 MB/s | vs | 76.7 MB/s | More than 1340.2x better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
| Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 4,490 | vs | 1,444 | More than 3x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.52 GHz | vs | 2.96 GHz | Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 62.2 °C | vs | 57 °C | Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L5410 vs Core2 Quad Q6600
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
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon L5410 | vs | Core2 Quad Q6600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 771 | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 50W | 105W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 12.04 $/year | 25.29 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 43.8 $/year | 91.98 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.46 pt/W | 1.19 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 40.63W | 85.31W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,066 MHz | |
details | Xeon L5410 | vs | Core2 Quad Q6600 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 7 | 9 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.35V | 0.85 - 1.5V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 57°C | Unknown - 62.2°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.96 GHz | 3.52 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.58 GHz | 3.6 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.96 GHz | 3.52 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 L5410  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| Q6600 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| Q6600 vs E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| Q6600 vs Q8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| Q6600 vs Q8200 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $200 | ||
| Q6600 vs Q9400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $184 | ||
| Q6600 vs 3570K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $287 | ||
| Q6600 vs Q9550 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $248 | $230 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
