Core 2 Duo E6540 vs Xeon E5410
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5410 outperforms Core 2 Duo E6540 by a whopping 147% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5410 and Core 2 Duo E6540 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2290 | 2870 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.49 | 0.74 |
| Release date | 1 October 2007 (17 years ago) | 1 July 2007 (17 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5410 and Core 2 Duo E6540 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Base clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 2.33 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 1333 MHz |
| L3 cache | 12 MB L2 Cache | 4 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | 72 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | 0.85V-1.5V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5410 and Core 2 Duo E6540 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.
| Socket | LGA771 | PLGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5410 and Core 2 Duo E6540. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | + |
| Demand Based Switching | + | - |
| FSB parity | + | - |
Security technologies
Xeon E5410 and Core 2 Duo E6540 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | - |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5410 and Core 2 Duo E6540 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | - | no data |
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.26 | 0.51 |
| Recency | 1 October 2007 | 1 July 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 65 Watt |
Xeon E5410 has a 147.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 months, and a 44.4% more advanced lithography process.
Core 2 Duo E6540, on the other hand, has 23.1% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5410 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E6540 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon E5410 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Duo E6540 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5410 and Core 2 Duo E6540, 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.
