Xeon E5335 vs Silver 4210

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon Silver 4210
2019
10 cores / 20 threads, 85 Watt
8.83
+774%

Xeon Silver 4210 outperforms Xeon E5335 by a whopping 774% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking8802469
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation19.86no data
Market segmentServerServer
SeriesIntel Xeon Silverno data
Power efficiency9.471.15
Architecture codenameCascade Lake (2019−2020)Clovertown (2006−2007)
Release date2 April 2019 (5 years ago)14 November 2006 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$501no data

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335 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 cores10 (Deca-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads204
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.2 GHz2 GHz
Multiplier22no data
L1 cache640 KB64 KB (per core)
L2 cache10 MB4 MB (per die)
L3 cache13.75 MB8 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography14 nm65 nm
Die sizeno data2x 143 mm2
Maximum core temperature78 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data66 °C
Number of transistorsno data582 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility+no data
VID voltage rangeno data1V-1.5V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335 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 configuration2 (Multiprocessor)2
SocketFCLGA3647LGA771,PLGA771
Power consumption (TDP)85 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512no data
AES-NI+-
AVX+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shift+no data
Turbo Boost Technology2.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
TSX+-
Idle Statesno data+
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
Turbo Boost Max 3.0-no data
FSB parityno data+
Deep Learning Boost+-

Security technologies

Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x++
EPT+-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR4-2400DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard
Maximum memory size1 TBno data
Max memory channels6no data
Maximum memory bandwidth115.212 GB/sno data
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 Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335.

PCIe version3.0no data
PCI Express lanes48no 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.

Xeon Silver 4210 8.83
+774%
Xeon E5335 1.01

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 Silver 4210 13520
+773%
Xeon E5335 1549

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 8.83 1.01
Recency 2 April 2019 14 November 2006
Physical cores 10 4
Threads 20 4
Chip lithography 14 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 85 Watt 80 Watt

Xeon Silver 4210 has a 774.3% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, 150% more physical cores and 400% more threads, and a 364.3% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon E5335, on the other hand, has 6.3% lower power consumption.

The Xeon Silver 4210 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5335 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon Silver 4210 and Xeon E5335, 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 Silver 4210
Xeon Silver 4210
Intel Xeon E5335
Xeon E5335

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.


4.1 46 votes

Rate Xeon Silver 4210 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

No user ratings yet.

Rate Xeon E5335 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon Silver 4210 or Xeon E5335, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.