Atom E3805 vs Xeon L5420
Aggregate performance score
Xeon L5420 outperforms Atom E3805 by a whopping 419% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 2242 | 3142 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Series | no data | Atom |
| Power efficiency | 2.56 | 8.20 |
| Architecture codename | no data | Bay Trail |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | no data (2024 years ago) |
Detailed specifications
Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 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 | no data | 2 (Dual-core) |
| Threads | no data | 2 |
| Base clock speed | 2.5 GHz | no data |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 1.33 GHz |
| L3 cache | 12 MB L2 Cache | no data |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Maximum core temperature | 57 °C | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 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.
| Socket | LGA771 | no data |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 3 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | + | - |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| FSB parity | + | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | no data |
| EDB | + | no data |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805 are enumerated here.
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | - | no 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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 1.35 | 0.26 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 22 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 50 Watt | 3 Watt |
Xeon L5420 has a 419.2% higher aggregate performance score.
Atom E3805, on the other hand, has a 104.5% more advanced lithography process, and 1566.7% lower power consumption.
The Xeon L5420 is our recommended choice as it beats the Atom E3805 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon L5420 is a server/workstation processor while Atom E3805 is a notebook one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon L5420 and Atom E3805, 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.
