Xeon E5405 vs Athlon II X4 630

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Athlon II X4 630
2009
4 cores / 4 threads, 95 Watt
1.35
+23.9%
Xeon E5405
2007
4 cores / 4 threads, 80 Watt
1.09

Athlon II X4 630 outperforms Xeon E5405 by a significant 24% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking23842553
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation6.020.20
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.361.31
DesignerAMDIntel
Manufacturerno dataIntel
Architecture codenamePropus (2009−2011)Harpertown (2007−2008)
Release date16 September 2009 (15 years ago)11 November 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$63$209

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Athlon II X4 630 has 2910% better value for money than Xeon E5405.

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405 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 cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.8 GHz2 GHz
L1 cache128 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache512 KB (per core)6 MB (per die)
L3 cache0 KB12 MB L2 Cache
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size169 mm22x 107 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data63 °C
Number of transistors300 million820 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage rangeno data0.85V-1.35V

Compatibility

Information on Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405 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 configuration12
SocketAM3LGA771
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)no data-
Turbo Boost Technologyno data-
Hyper-Threading Technologyno data-
Idle Statesno data-
Thermal Monitoring-+
Demand Based Switchingno data-
FSB parityno data+

Security technologies

Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXTno data+
EDBno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405 are enumerated here.

VT-xno data+
EPTno data-

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardOn certain motherboards (Chipset feature)N/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405.

PCIe version2.02.0

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.

Athlon II X4 630 1.35
+23.9%
Xeon E5405 1.09

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.

Athlon II X4 630 2169
+23.9%
Xeon E5405 1750

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.

Athlon II X4 630 297
Xeon E5405 302
+1.7%

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.

Athlon II X4 630 893
Xeon E5405 1050
+17.6%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.35 1.09
Recency 16 September 2009 11 November 2007
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 80 Watt

Athlon II X4 630 has a 23.9% higher aggregate performance score, and an age advantage of 1 year.

Xeon E5405, on the other hand, has 18.8% lower power consumption.

The AMD Athlon II X4 630 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon E5405 in performance tests.

Note that Athlon II X4 630 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5405 is a server/workstation one.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


AMD Athlon II X4 630
Athlon II X4 630
Intel Xeon E5405
Xeon E5405

Other comparisons

We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.7 363 votes

Rate Athlon II X4 630 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.6 31 votes

Rate Xeon E5405 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Athlon II X4 630 and Xeon E5405, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.