D-1513N vs Xeon E5-2609
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
Place in the ranking | 2004 | not rated |
Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.73 | no data |
Market segment | Server | Server |
Series | no data | Intel Xeon D |
Power efficiency | 2.13 | no data |
Architecture codename | Sandy Bridge-EP (2012) | Broadwell (2015−2019) |
Release date | 6 March 2012 (12 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Launch price (MSRP) | $143 | $192 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.
Physical cores | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
Threads | 4 | 8 |
Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | no data |
Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.6 GHz |
Bus type | no data | DMI 2.0 |
Bus rate | 6.4 GT/s | no data |
Multiplier | no data | 16 |
L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
L3 cache | 10240 KB (shared) | 6 MB |
Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
Die size | 294 mm2 | 246.24 mm2 |
Maximum core temperature | 70 °C | no data |
Number of transistors | 1,270 million | 3200 Million |
64 bit support | + | + |
Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.
Number of CPUs in a configuration | 2 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
Socket | FCLGA2011 | no data |
Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 35 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
Instruction set extensions | Intel® AVX | no data |
AES-NI | + | + |
AVX | + | + |
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
TSX | - | + |
Idle States | + | no data |
Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
Flex Memory Access | - | no data |
Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
TXT | + | + |
EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N are enumerated here.
VT-d | + | + |
VT-x | + | + |
EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Maximum memory size | 384 GB | 128 GB |
Max memory channels | 4 | no data |
Maximum memory bandwidth | 34.1 GB/s | 29.861 GB/s |
ECC memory support | + | - |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N.
PCIe version | 3.0 | no data |
PCI Express lanes | 40 | no data |
Pros & cons summary
Threads | 4 | 8 |
Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 35 Watt |
D-1513N has 100% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 128.6% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2609 and D-1513N, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
Similar processor comparisons
We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.