CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X5355 vs 5160 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 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 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
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Front view of Intel Xeon 5160

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon 5160

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.66 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Significantly lower typical power consumption 65W vs 97.5W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.63 GHz vs 3.24 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3 GHz vs 2.66 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year vs 105.12 $/year Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year vs 28.91 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X5355 vs 5160

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
9,667
Xeon 5160
5,525

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
1,408
Xeon 5160
1,569

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
108,000 MB/s
Xeon 5160
120,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5355
4,430
Xeon 5160
2,576

GeekBench

Xeon X5355
4,430
Xeon 5160
3,222

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon X5355
3,266
Xeon 5160
1,971

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon X5355
1,045
Xeon 5160
1,130

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon X5355  vs
5160 
Clock speed 2.66 GHz 3 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 80W
Annual home energy cost 28.91 $/year 19.27 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year 70.08 $/year
Performance per watt 1.37 pt/W 1.56 pt/W
Typical power consumption 97.5W 65W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC No No

details

Xeon X5355  vs
5160 
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 9
Voltage range 1 - 1.5V 1 - 1.5V
Operating temperature Unknown - 70°C Unknown - 65°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.24 GHz 3.63 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.66 GHz 3 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.24 GHz 3.63 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

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz
Intel Xeon X5355
Report a correction
Intel Xeon 5160
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus