Xeon w9-3595X vs E5-2430

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2430
2012
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.60
Xeon w9-3595X
2024
60 cores / 120 threads, 385 Watt
62.95
+1649%

Xeon w9-3595X outperforms Xeon E5-2430 by a whopping 1649% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2430 and Xeon w9-3595X processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking151313
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.4120.42
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency3.5915.47
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EN (2012)Sapphire Rapids (2023−2024)
Release date14 May 2012 (12 years ago)24 August 2024 (less than a year ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$119$5,889

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon w9-3595X has 363% better value for money than Xeon E5-2430.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2430 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)60 (Hexaconta-Core)
Performance-coresno data60
Threads12120
Base clock speed2.2 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed2.7 GHz4.8 GHz
Bus rate7.2 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)80 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2 MB (per core)
L3 cache15360 KB (shared)112.5 MB
Chip lithography32 nmIntel 7 nm
Die size294 mm24x 477 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)no data81 °C
Number of transistors1,270 millionno data
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility-no data
Unlocked multiplier-+

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2430 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA1356FCLGA4677
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt385 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2430 and Xeon w9-3595X. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® 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 Technology1.02.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
TSX-+
Idle States+no data
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+no data
Turbo Boost Max 3.0no data+
Deep Learning Boost-+

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2430 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 Xeon E5-2430 and Xeon w9-3595X are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2430 and Xeon w9-3595X. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR5-4800
Maximum memory size384 GB4 TB
Max memory channels38
Maximum memory bandwidth32 GB/sno data
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 Xeon E5-2430 and Xeon w9-3595X.

PCIe version3.05.0
PCI Express lanes24112

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 E5-2430 3.60
Xeon w9-3595X 62.95
+1649%

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 E5-2430 5719
Xeon w9-3595X 99993
+1648%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.60 62.95
Recency 14 May 2012 24 August 2024
Physical cores 6 60
Threads 12 120
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 385 Watt

Xeon E5-2430 has 305.3% lower power consumption.

Xeon w9-3595X, on the other hand, has a 1648.6% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 12 years, and 900% more physical cores and 900% more threads.

The Xeon w9-3595X is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2430 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2430 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 Xeon E5-2430
Xeon E5-2430
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.


4.1 69 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2430 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.8 42 votes

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 Xeon E5-2430 or Xeon w9-3595X, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.