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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon W3565

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon W3565

Report a correction
Slightly more l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
More l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1.5 MB/core Around 35% more l3 cache per core
Lower typical power consumption 105.63W vs 112.55W More than 5% lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year vs 41.29 $/year Around 25% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500K

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 4.1 pt/$ vs 0.69 pt/$ Around 6x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher turbo clock speed 3.7 GHz vs 3.46 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Much better performance per watt 6.79 pt/W vs 1.62 pt/W Around 4.2x better performance per watt
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,863 vs 1,419 More than 30% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.98 GHz vs 4.3 GHz More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz vs 3.2 GHz Around 55% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Nov, 2009 Release date over 1 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon W3565 vs Core i5 2500K

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

Xeon W3565
139,100 MB/s
Core i5 2500K
2,530,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon W3565
8,511
Core i5 2500K
10,319

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon W3565
9,573
Core i5 2500K
11,186

GeekBench

Xeon W3565
10,582
Core i5 2500K
13,624

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon W3565  vs
Core i5 2500K 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 3.3 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.46 GHz 3.7 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 1366
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 130W 95W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 41.29 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 110.03 $/year
Performance per watt 1.62 pt/W 6.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 112.55W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
DDR3
Channels Triple Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 25,599.99 MB/s 21,333.32 MB/s
Maximum memory size 24,576 MB 32,768 MB

details

Xeon W3565  vs
Core i5 2500K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 4
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 6 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 731,000,000 1,160,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 24 33
Voltage range 0.8 - 1.23V 1.2 - 1.5V

overclocking

Overclock popularity 0 3,179
Overclocked clock speed 4.3 GHz 4.98 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.2 GHz 4.88 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.3 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

bus

Architecture QPI DMI
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 4,800 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Xeon W3565
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 2500K
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus