Xeon E5530 vs E5620

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5620
2010
4 cores / 8 threads, 80 Watt
2.26
+32.2%
Xeon E5530
2009
4 cores / 8 threads, 80 Watt
1.71

Xeon E5620 outperforms Xeon E5530 by a substantial 32% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18282053
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.080.33
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency2.672.02
Architecture codenameWestmere-EP (2010−2011)Gainestown (2009−2010)
Release date16 March 2010 (14 years ago)30 March 2009 (15 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$35$340

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5530 has 313% better value for money than Xeon E5620.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads88
Base clock speed2.4 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed2.66 GHz2.66 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache12 MB (shared)8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die size239 mm2263 mm2
Maximum core temperature78 °C76 °C
Number of transistors1,170 million731 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530 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
SocketFCLGA1366,LGA1366FCLGA1366,PLGA1366
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2no data
AES-NI+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.01.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Demand Based Switching++
PAE40 Bit40 Bit

Security technologies

Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size288 GB144 GB
Max memory channels33
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s
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 E5620 and Xeon E5530.

PCIe version2.02.0

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 E5620 2.26
+32.2%
Xeon E5530 1.71

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 E5620 3592
+31.9%
Xeon E5530 2723

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.

Xeon E5620 367
Xeon E5530 380
+3.5%

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.

Xeon E5620 1468
Xeon E5530 1588
+8.2%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.26 1.71
Recency 16 March 2010 30 March 2009
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm

Xeon E5620 has a 32.2% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 11 months, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

The Xeon E5620 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5530 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5620 and Xeon E5530, 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 E5620
Xeon E5620
Intel Xeon E5530
Xeon E5530

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.


3.2 129 votes

Rate Xeon E5620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.5 13 votes

Rate Xeon E5530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5620 or Xeon E5530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.