Xeon Gold 6526Y vs E5-2609

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2609
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 80 Watt
1.80
Xeon Gold 6526Y
2023
16 cores / 32 threads, 195 Watt
28.97
+1509%

Xeon Gold 6526Y outperforms Xeon E5-2609 by a whopping 1509% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2009154
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.8656.09
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency2.1314.06
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EP (2012)Emerald Rapids (2023)
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)14 December 2023 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$143$1,517

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon Gold 6526Y has 6422% better value for money than Xeon E5-2609.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)16 (Hexadeca-Core)
Threads432
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.4 GHz3.9 GHz
Bus rate6.4 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache10240 KB (shared)37.5 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size294 mm22x 763 mm2
Maximum core temperature70 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data82 °C
Number of transistors1,270 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y 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 configuration22
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt195 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI++
AVX++
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++
SGXno dataYes with Intel® SPS
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-5200
Maximum memory size384 GB4 TB
Max memory channels48
Maximum memory bandwidth34.1 GB/sno data
ECC memory support++

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes4080

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

Xeon E5-2609 1.80
Xeon Gold 6526Y 28.97
+1509%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

Xeon E5-2609 2858
Xeon Gold 6526Y 46025
+1510%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.80 28.97
Recency 6 March 2012 14 December 2023
Physical cores 4 16
Threads 4 32
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 195 Watt

Xeon E5-2609 has 143.8% lower power consumption.

Xeon Gold 6526Y, on the other hand, has a 1509.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 years, and 300% more physical cores and 700% more threads.

The Xeon Gold 6526Y is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2609 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2609 and Xeon Gold 6526Y, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Xeon E5-2609
Xeon E5-2609
Intel Xeon Gold 6526Y
Xeon Gold 6526Y

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.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 12 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2609 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 12 votes

Rate Xeon Gold 6526Y on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2609 or Xeon Gold 6526Y, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.