CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X5355 vs C2758 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
Front view of Intel Atom C2758

Intel Atom C2758

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon X5355

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon X5355

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 2.66 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.24 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.66 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Atom C2758

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom C2758

Report a correction
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much lower typical power consumption 16.25W vs 97.5W 6x lower typical power consumption
Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 17.52 $/year vs 105.12 $/year 6x lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 4.82 $/year vs 28.91 $/year 6x lower annual home energy cost
Newer Jul, 2013 vs Nov, 2006 Release date over 6 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X5355 vs Atom C2758

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
9,667
Atom C2758
2,292

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
108,000 MB/s
Atom C2758
52,100 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon X5355
3,266
Atom C2758
3,162

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon X5355  vs
Atom C2758 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes No

power consumption

TDP 120W 20W
Annual home energy cost 28.91 $/year 4.82 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year 17.52 $/year
Performance per watt 1.37 pt/W 4.02 pt/W
Typical power consumption 97.5W 16.25W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

Xeon X5355  vs
Atom C2758 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
Manufacture process 65 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 2 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.24 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.66 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.24 GHz 2.4 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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC No Yes
Intel Xeon X5355
Report a correction
Intel Atom C2758
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus