Xeon w9-3595X vs Duo T2300

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core Duo T2300
2006
2 cores / 2 threads, 31 Watt
0.20
Xeon w9-3595X
2024
60 cores / 120 threads, 385 Watt
62.95
+31375%

Xeon w9-3595X outperforms Core Duo T2300 by a whopping 31375% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking322913
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data20.42
Market segmentLaptopServer
SeriesCore Duono data
Power efficiency0.6115.46
Architecture codenameYonah (2005−2006)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release dateJanuary 2006 (18 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$5,889

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X 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 cores2 (Dual-core)60 (Hexaconta-Core)
Threads2120
Base clock speed1.66 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed1.66 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus rate667 MHzno data
L1 cache0 KB80 KB (per core)
L2 cache2 MB2 MB (per core)
L3 cache0 KB112.5 MB
Chip lithography65 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size90 mm24x 477 mm2
Maximum core temperature100 °Cno data
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data81 °C
Number of transistors151 millionno data
64 bit support-+
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+
VID voltage range1.1625V - 1.3Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X 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 configuration11
SocketPPGA478, PBGA479FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)31 Watt385 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE4.1, Intel® AMX, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2, Intel® AVX-512
AES-NI-+
AVX-+
vProno data+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Speed Shiftno data+
Turbo Boost Technology-2.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
TSX-+
Idle States-no data
Demand Based Switching-no data
PAE32 Bitno data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
FSB parity-no data
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT-+
EDB++
SGXno data-
OS Guardno data+

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPTno data+

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR1DDR5-4800
Maximum memory sizeno data4 TB
Max memory channelsno data8
ECC memory support-+

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardno dataN/A

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X.

PCIe versionno data5.0
PCI Express lanesno data112

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.

Duo T2300 0.20
Xeon w9-3595X 62.95
+31375%

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.

Duo T2300 325
Xeon w9-3595X 99993
+30667%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 0.20 62.95
Physical cores 2 60
Threads 2 120
Power consumption (TDP) 31 Watt 385 Watt

Duo T2300 has 1141.9% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3595X, on the other hand, has a 31375% higher aggregate performance score, and 2900% more physical cores and 5900% more threads.

The Xeon w9-3595X is our recommended choice as it beats the Core Duo T2300 in performance tests.

Be aware that Core Duo T2300 is a notebook processor while Xeon w9-3595X is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core Duo T2300 and Xeon w9-3595X, 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 Core Duo T2300
Core Duo T2300
Intel Xeon w9-3595X
Xeon w9-3595X

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.


3.9 21 vote

Rate Core Duo T2300 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.7 41 vote

Rate Xeon w9-3595X on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core Duo T2300 or Xeon w9-3595X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.