Atom C3958 vs Xeon E5645
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5645 outperforms Atom C3958 by a moderate 18% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1538 | 1633 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.70 | 0.54 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Atom |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Goldmont (2016−2017) |
| Release date | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 15 August 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $294 | $449 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E5645 has 215% better value for money than Atom C3958.
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 16 (Hexadeca-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Base clock speed | 2.4 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | 2.67 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 896 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 16 MB |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | no data |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 76 °C | 83 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | No |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958 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 | 1366 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 31 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3L-1600 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 256 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | 38.397 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | no data |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 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 E5645 outperforms Atom C3958 by 18% 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 E5645 outperforms Atom C3958 by 18% in Passmark.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.26 | 2.77 |
| Recency | 16 March 2010 | 15 August 2017 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 16 |
| Threads | 12 | 16 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 80 Watt | 31 Watt |
Xeon E5645 has a 17.7% higher aggregate performance score.
Atom C3958, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 7 years, 166.7% more physical cores and 33.3% more threads, a 128.6% more advanced lithography process, and 158.1% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E5645 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom C3958 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5645 and Atom C3958, 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.
