Atom N570 vs Xeon E5405

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5405
2007
4 cores / 4 threads, 80 Watt
1.09
+395%
Atom N570
2011
2 cores / 4 threads, 8 Watt
0.22

Xeon E5405 outperforms Atom N570 by a whopping 395% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

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

Place in the ranking25533335
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation0.20no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Atom
Power efficiency1.312.35
DesignerIntelIntel
ManufacturerIntelIntel
Architecture codenameHarpertown (2007−2008)Pineview (2009−2011)
Release date11 November 2007 (17 years ago)1 March 2011 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$209$86

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Performance to price scatter graph

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5405 and Atom N570 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads44
Base clock speed2 GHz1.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2 GHz1.67 GHz
Bus rateno data666 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64K (per core)
L2 cache6 MB (per die)512K (per core)
L3 cache12 MB L2 Cache0 KB
Chip lithography45 nm45 nm
Die size2x 107 mm287 mm2
Maximum case temperature (TCase)63 °Cno data
Number of transistors820 million176 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
VID voltage range0.85V-1.35Vno data

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5405 and Atom N570 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
SocketLGA771FCBGA559
Power consumption (TDP)80 Watt8.5 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5405 and Atom N570. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsno dataIntel® SSE2, Intel® SSE3, Intel® SSSE3
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)-+
Turbo Boost Technology--
Hyper-Threading Technology-+
Idle States-no data
Thermal Monitoring++
Demand Based Switching--
FSB parity+no data

Security technologies

Xeon E5405 and Atom N570 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5405 and Atom N570 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data-
VT-x+-
EPT-no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5405 and Atom N570. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboardDDR3
Maximum memory sizeno data2 GB
Max memory channelsno data1

Graphics specifications

General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.

Integrated graphics cardN/AIntel GMA 3150

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5405 and Atom N570.

PCIe version2.0no 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.

Xeon E5405 1.09
+395%
Atom N570 0.22

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.

Xeon E5405 1750
+386%
Atom N570 360

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 E5405 302
+268%
Atom N570 82

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 E5405 1050
+384%
Atom N570 217

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 1.09 0.22
Recency 11 November 2007 1 March 2011
Physical cores 4 2
Power consumption (TDP) 80 Watt 8 Watt

Xeon E5405 has a 395.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 100% more physical cores.

Atom N570, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 3 years, and 900% lower power consumption.

The Intel Xeon E5405 is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Atom N570 in performance tests.

Be aware that Xeon E5405 is a server/workstation processor while Atom N570 is a notebook 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.


Intel Xeon E5405
Xeon E5405
Intel Atom N570
Atom N570

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.


3.6 31 votes

Rate Xeon E5405 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.3 136 votes

Rate Atom N570 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Comments

Here you can give us your opinion about processors Xeon E5405 and Atom N570, agree or disagree with our ratings, or report bugs or inaccuracies on the site.