A10-7890K vs Xeon W5580
Aggregate performance score
A10-7890K outperforms Xeon W5580 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1862 | 1828 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.47 | 0.32 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Power efficiency | 1.54 | 2.21 |
| Architecture codename | Gainestown (2009−2010) | Godaveri (2014−2016) |
| Release date | 30 March 2009 (15 years ago) | 11 January 2016 (8 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $102 | $150 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon W5580 has 359% better value for money than A10-7890K.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 4 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.46 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 67 °C | 72 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K 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 |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | FM2+ |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | - | + |
| FMA | - | FMA4 |
| AVX | - | AVX |
| FRTC | - | + |
| FreeSync | - | + |
| PowerTune | - | + |
| DualGraphics | - | + |
| TrueAudio | - | + |
| PowerNow | - | + |
| PowerGating | - | + |
| Out-of-band client management | - | + |
| VirusProtect | - | + |
| HSA | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 40 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K 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 W5580 and A10-7890K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | - | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | - | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-2133 |
| Maximum memory size | 144 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | AMD Radeon R7 Graphics |
| iGPU core count | no data | 8 |
| Number of pipelines | no data | 512 |
| Enduro | - | + |
| Switchable graphics | - | + |
| UVD | - | + |
| VCE | - | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | - | + |
| HDMI | - | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 12 |
| Vulkan | - | + |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
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.
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 | 2.13 | 2.23 |
| Recency | 30 March 2009 | 11 January 2016 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Xeon W5580 has 100% more threads.
A10-7890K, on the other hand, has a 4.7% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 6 years, a 60.7% more advanced lithography process, and 36.8% lower power consumption.
Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K.
Be aware that Xeon W5580 is a server/workstation processor while A10-7890K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W5580 and A10-7890K, 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.
