Xeon 5130 vs X5650

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X5650
2010
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.60
+620%
Xeon 5130
2006
2 cores / 2 threads, 65 Watt
0.50

Xeon X5650 outperforms Xeon 5130 by a whopping 620% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15112893
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.250.74
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency3.590.73
Architecture codenameWestmere-EP (2010−2011)Woodcrest (2006)
Release date16 March 2010 (14 years ago)June 2006 (18 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$53$16

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon 5130 has 196% better value for money than Xeon X5650.

Detailed specifications

Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)2 (Dual-core)
Threads122
Base clock speed2.66 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.06 GHz2 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)0 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)4 MB
L3 cache12 MB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size239 mm2no data
Maximum core temperature81 °C65 °C
Number of transistors1,170 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno dataB2=1V-1.5V

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA1366,LGA1366771
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt65 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130. 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 Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switching+-
PAE40 Bitno data
FSB parityno data+

Security technologies

Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR2
Maximum memory size288 GBno data
Max memory channels3no data
Maximum memory bandwidth32 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+-

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130.

PCIe version2.0no 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 X5650 3.60
+620%
Xeon 5130 0.50

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 X5650 5719
+619%
Xeon 5130 795

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 X5650 447
+66.2%
Xeon 5130 269

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 X5650 2231
+380%
Xeon 5130 465

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.60 0.50
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 12 2
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 65 Watt

Xeon X5650 has a 620% higher aggregate performance score, 200% more physical cores and 500% more threads, and a 103.1% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon 5130, on the other hand, has 46.2% lower power consumption.

The Xeon X5650 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon 5130 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5650 and Xeon 5130, 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 X5650
Xeon X5650
Intel Xeon 5130
Xeon 5130

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.


4.3 456 votes

Rate Xeon X5650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 7 votes

Rate Xeon 5130 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X5650 or Xeon 5130, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.