Pentium G3258 vs Xeon E5-2670 v2
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5-2670 v2 outperforms Pentium G3258 by a whopping 446% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 936 | 2179 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 12.77 | 0.11 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Ivy Bridge-EP (2013) | Haswell (2013−2015) |
| Release date | 1 September 2013 (10 years ago) | 2 June 2014 (10 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $927 | $77 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5-2670 v2 has 11509% better value for money than Pentium G3258.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258 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 | 10 (Deca-Core) | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | 20 | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.3 GHz | 3.2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 25 MB (shared) | 3 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 22 nm | 22 nm |
| Die size | 160 mm2 | 177 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 82 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 72 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,400 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258 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 |
| Socket | 2011 | 1150 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 54 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | no data |
| AVX | + | no data |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
Security technologies
Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 59.7 GB/s | 21.3 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | Intel HD (Haswell) |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258.
| PCIe version | 3.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | 40 | 16 |
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 E5-2670 v2 outperforms Pentium G3258 by 446% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon E5-2670 v2 outperforms Pentium G3258 by 446% in Passmark.
GeekBench 5 Single-Core
GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Pentium G3258 outperforms Xeon E5-2670 v2 by 24% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core
GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.
Benchmark coverage: 41%
Xeon E5-2670 v2 outperforms Pentium G3258 by 218% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 7.32 | 1.34 |
| Recency | 1 September 2013 | 2 June 2014 |
| Physical cores | 10 | 2 |
| Threads | 20 | 2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 115 Watt | 54 Watt |
Xeon E5-2670 v2 has a 446.3% higher aggregate performance score, and 400% more physical cores and 900% more threads.
Pentium G3258, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 9 months, and 113% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5-2670 v2 is our recommended choice as it beats the Pentium G3258 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5-2670 v2 is a server/workstation processor while Pentium G3258 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2670 v2 and Pentium G3258, 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.
