Atom E3805 vs Xeon L5420

VS

Primary details

Comparing Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking2236not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataAtom
Power efficiency2.55no data
Architecture codenameno dataBay Trail
Release date1 January 2008 (16 years ago)no data (2024 years ago)

Detailed specifications

Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 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 coresno data2 (Dual-core)
Threadsno data2
Base clock speed2.5 GHzno data
Boost clock speedno data1.33 GHz
L3 cache12 MB L2 Cacheno data
Chip lithography45 nm22 nm
Maximum core temperature57 °Cno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.35Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 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.

SocketLGA771no data
Power consumption (TDP)50 Watt3 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)+no data
Turbo Boost Technology-no data
Hyper-Threading Technology-no data
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Demand Based Switching+no data
FSB parity+no data

Security technologies

Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-no data
EDB+no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 are enumerated here.

VT-x+no data
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.



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 L5420 2143
+428%
Atom E3805 406

Pros & cons summary


Chip lithography 45 nm 22 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 50 Watt 3 Watt

Atom E3805 has a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.

We couldn't decide between Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Xeon L5420 is a server/workstation processor while Atom E3805 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805, 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 L5420
Xeon L5420
Intel Atom E3805
Atom E3805

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.


4.2 149 votes

Rate Xeon L5420 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 11 votes

Rate Atom E3805 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon L5420 or Atom E3805, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.