Xeon L5335 vs A8-3500M
Aggregate performance score
Xeon L5335 outperforms A8-3500M by a significant 25% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2889 | 2738 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.04 |
| Market segment | Laptop | Server |
| Series | AMD A-Series | no data |
| Power efficiency | 0.95 | 0.84 |
| Designer | AMD | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Llano (2011−2012) | Clovertown (2006−2007) |
| Release date | 14 June 2011 (14 years ago) | 13 August 2007 (18 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $380 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Performance to price scatter graph
Currently popular graphics cards are shown for comparison.
Detailed specifications
Basic parameters of A8-3500M and Xeon L5335: 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 | 4 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 1.5 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2 GHz |
| L1 cache | 128 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 1 MB (per core) | 4 MB (per die) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 8 MB L2 Cache |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Die size | 228 mm2 | 2x 143 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 60 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,178 million | 582 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | no data | 1.1V-1.25V |
Compatibility
Information on A8-3500M and Xeon L5335 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 | 1 | 2 |
| Socket | FS1 | PLGA771 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by A8-3500M and Xeon L5335. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | 3DNow!, MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4a, Radeon HD 6620G | no data |
| 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
A8-3500M and Xeon L5335 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 A8-3500M and Xeon L5335 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | + | - |
| VT-x | no data | + |
| EPT | no data | - |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by A8-3500M and Xeon L5335. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | AMD Radeon HD 6620G (444 MHz) | N/A |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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. Other than that, Passmark measures multi-core performance.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.79 | 0.99 |
| Recency | 14 June 2011 | 13 August 2007 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 65 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 35 Watt | 50 Watt |
A8-3500M has an age advantage of 3 years, a 103% more advanced lithography process, and 43% lower power consumption.
Xeon L5335, on the other hand, has a 25% higher aggregate performance score.
The Intel Xeon L5335 is our recommended choice as it beats the AMD A8-3500M in performance tests.
Be aware that A8-3500M is a notebook processor while Xeon L5335 is a server/workstation one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
