Xeon E5606 vs Core 2 Duo E8400
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E5606 outperforms Core 2 Duo E8400 by a whopping 104% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2686 | 2162 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | no data | 0.43 |
| Market segment | Desktop processor | Server |
| Power efficiency | 1.06 | 1.76 |
| Architecture codename | Wolfdale (2008−2010) | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 14 February 2011 (13 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $46 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Detailed specifications
Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606 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) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.13 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3 GHz | 0.13 GHz |
| Bus rate | 1333 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 64 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 6 MB (shared) | 256 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 0 KB | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 104 mm2 | 239 mm2 |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | 72 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 410 million | 1,170 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.3625V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606 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 | LGA775 | FCLGA1366,LGA1366 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 80 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | - |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | - | + |
| PAE | no data | 40 Bit |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR1, DDR2, DDR3 | DDR3 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 288 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 3 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | no data | 25.6 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | On certain motherboards (Chipset feature) | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 0.73 | 1.49 |
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 14 February 2011 |
| Physical cores | 2 | 4 |
| Threads | 2 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 32 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 80 Watt |
Core 2 Duo E8400 has 23.1% lower power consumption.
Xeon E5606, on the other hand, has a 104.1% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 3 years, 100% more physical cores and 100% more threads, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.
The Xeon E5606 is our recommended choice as it beats the Core 2 Duo E8400 in performance tests.
Note that Core 2 Duo E8400 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5606 is a server/workstation one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Core 2 Duo E8400 and Xeon E5606, 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.
