Xeon X3380 vs X5698
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X5698 outperforms Xeon X3380 by a substantial 35% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1842 | 2086 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.58 | 1.61 |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | no data |
| Release date | 14 February 2011 (13 years ago) | 1 January 2009 (15 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380 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 | 2 (Dual-core) | no data |
| Threads | 4 | no data |
| Base clock speed | 4.4 GHz | 3.16 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 4.4 GHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | no data |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | no data |
| L3 cache | 12288 KB (shared) | 12 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 71 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 0.85V-1.3625V |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380 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 | no data |
| Socket | 1366 | LGA775 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| AES-NI | + | - |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | no data | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | no data | - |
| FSB parity | no data | - |
Security technologies
Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | - |
| EDB | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
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 | 2.18 | 1.62 |
| Recency | 14 February 2011 | 1 January 2009 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 45 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 95 Watt |
Xeon X5698 has a 34.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 2 years, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
Xeon X3380, on the other hand, has 36.8% lower power consumption.
The Xeon X5698 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon X3380 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5698 and Xeon X3380, 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.
