CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X5355 vs 5110 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

5.1

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon X5355 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon X5355  based on its performance and single-core performance.

See full details

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 X5355

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Xeon X5355

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon X5355

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon X5355

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.66 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 65% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 4 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.24 GHz vs 2.51 GHz Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.66 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 65% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Xeon 5110

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon 5110

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 97.5W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 105.12 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Much lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 28.91 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X5355 vs 5110

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
9,667
Xeon 5110
3,028

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
1,408
Xeon 5110
856

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
108,000 MB/s
Xeon 5110
68,550 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon X5355
3,266
Xeon 5110
1,079

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon X5355
1,045
Xeon 5110
619

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon X5355  vs
5110 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 771

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE2
SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 120W 65W
Annual home energy cost 28.91 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 1.37 pt/W 1.17 pt/W
Typical power consumption 97.5W 52.81W

bus

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

details

Xeon X5355  vs
5110 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 8 MB 4 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 582,000,000 291,000,000
Max CPUs 2 2
Clock multiplier 8 6
Voltage range 1 - 1.5V 1 - 1.5V
Operating temperature Unknown - 70°C Unknown - 65°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.24 GHz 2.51 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.66 GHz 1.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.24 GHz 2.51 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 X5355
Report a correction
Intel Xeon 5110
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus