CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X5460 vs X5260 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 X5460

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Xeon X5460

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon X5460

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon X5460

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 6 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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.07 GHz vs 3.33 GHz More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Xeon X5260

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon X5260

Report a correction
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,418 vs 1,335 More than 5% better PassMark (Single core) score
Higher clock speed 3.33 GHz vs 3.16 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Significantly lower typical power consumption 65W vs 97.5W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.34 GHz vs 4.06 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
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 X5460 vs X5260

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5460
7,123
Xeon X5260
3,804

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5460
1,694
Xeon X5260
1,691

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon X5460
135,100 MB/s
Xeon X5260
141,100 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon X5460
4,374
Xeon X5260
2,452

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon X5460
1,335
Xeon X5260
1,418

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon X5460  vs
X5260 
Clock speed 3.16 GHz 3.33 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
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
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 1.48 pt/W 1.83 pt/W
Typical power consumption 97.5W 65W

bus

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

details

Xeon X5460  vs
X5260 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 12 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 3 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 45 nm
Transistor count 820,000,000 410,000,000
Max CPUs 2 2
Clock multiplier 9 10
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.35V 0.85 - 1.35V
Operating temperature Unknown - 63°C Unknown - 66°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.06 GHz 4.34 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.07 GHz 3.33 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 2,575.6 2,149.7
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.06 GHz 4.34 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 X5460
Report a correction
Intel Xeon X5260
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus