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 Core i5 2500K

Intel Core i5 2500K

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon X5365

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon X5365

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 1 MB 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 8x more l2 cache per core
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Lower annual home energy cost 36.13 $/year vs 41.29 $/year More than 10% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500K

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per dollar 4.1 pt/$ vs 0.16 pt/$ Around 26.2x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 3 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.98 GHz vs 3.4 GHz More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 6.79 pt/W vs 1.22 pt/W More than 5.5x better performance per watt
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,863 vs 1,169 Around 60% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better PassMark score 6,383 vs 3,491 Around 85% better PassMark score
Lower typical power consumption 112.55W vs 121.88W Around 10% lower typical power consumption
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Aug, 2007 Release date over 3 years later
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.6 °C vs 63 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz vs 3 GHz Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 110.03 $/year vs 131.4 $/year More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X5365 vs Core i5 2500K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5365
10,747

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5365
121,300 MB/s
Core i5 2500K
2,530,000 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5365
4,944
Core i5 2500K
10,319

GeekBench

Xeon X5365
4,944
Core i5 2500K
13,624

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon X5365  vs
Core i5 2500K 
Clock speed 3 GHz 3.3 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 771
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 150W 95W
Annual home energy cost 36.13 $/year 41.29 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 131.4 $/year 110.03 $/year
Performance per watt 1.22 pt/W 6.79 pt/W
Typical power consumption 121.88W 112.55W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

Xeon X5365  vs
Core i5 2500K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 8 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 32 nm
Transistor count 582,000,000 1,160,000,000
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 9 33
Voltage range 1 - 1.5V 1.2 - 1.5V
Operating temperature Unknown - 63°C 5 - 72.6°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.4 GHz 4.98 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3 GHz 4.88 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.4 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
Intel Xeon X5365
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 2500K
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus