Xeon W3530 vs E5-1603

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-1603
2012
4 cores / 4 threads, 130 Watt
2.26
+12.4%

Xeon E5-1603 outperforms Xeon W3530 by a moderate 12% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18341945
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluationno data0.12
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency1.591.41
Architecture codenameno dataBloomfield (2008−2010)
Release date1 January 2012 (12 years ago)16 March 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)no data$999

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530 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)
Threads48
Base clock speed2.8 GHz2.8 GHz
Boost clock speedno data3.06 GHz
Bus rate0 GT/sno data
L1 cacheno data64 KB (per core)
L2 cacheno data256 KB (per core)
L3 cache10 MB8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm45 nm
Die sizeno data263 mm2
Maximum core temperature64 °C68 °C
Number of transistorsno data731 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.6V - 1.35Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530 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
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA1366
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt130 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI+-
vPro+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology-1.0
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access+no data
Demand Based Switching++
PAEno data36 Bit

Security technologies

Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3-800, DDR3-1066DDR3
Maximum memory size375 GB24 GB
Max memory channels43
Maximum memory bandwidth31.4 GB/s25.6 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes40no 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.

Xeon E5-1603 2.26
+12.4%
Xeon W3530 2.01

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.

Xeon E5-1603 3463
+12.8%
Xeon W3530 3071

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.

Xeon E5-1603 466
+6.4%
Xeon W3530 438

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.

Xeon E5-1603 1478
Xeon W3530 1533
+3.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.26 2.01
Recency 1 January 2012 16 March 2010
Threads 4 8
Chip lithography 32 nm 45 nm

Xeon E5-1603 has a 12.4% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 1 year, and a 40.6% more advanced lithography process.

Xeon W3530, on the other hand, has 100% more threads.

The Xeon E5-1603 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3530 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-1603 and Xeon W3530, 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 Xeon E5-1603
Xeon E5-1603
Intel Xeon W3530
Xeon W3530

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.


3.5 22 votes

Rate Xeon E5-1603 on a scale of 1 to 5:

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

Rate Xeon W3530 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-1603 or Xeon W3530, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.