Athlon X4 950 vs Xeon L5640
Aggregate performance score
Xeon L5640 outperforms Athlon X4 950 by a significant 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1572 | 1718 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 0.27 | 3.66 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Bristol Ridge (2016−2019) |
| Release date | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 27 July 2017 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $200 | $60 |
| Current price | $768 (3.8x MSRP) | $43 (0.7x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Athlon X4 950 has 1256% better value for money than Xeon L5640.
Detailed specifications
Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950 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 | 6 (Hexa-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.26 GHz | 3.5 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 3.8 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 128 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 512 KB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 69 °C | no data |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,178 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950 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 configuration | 2 | 1 |
| Socket | FCLGA1366,LGA1366 | AM4 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 65 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| FMA | no data | + |
| AVX | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | no data |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 40 Bit | no data |
| Status | Discontinued | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950 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 L5640 and Athlon X4 950 are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4 Dual-channel |
| Maximum memory size | 288 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 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.
Xeon L5640 outperforms Athlon X4 950 by 28% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 68%
Xeon L5640 outperforms Athlon X4 950 by 28% in Passmark.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Athlon X4 950 outperforms Xeon L5640 by 48% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.
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.
Benchmark coverage: 42%
Xeon L5640 outperforms Athlon X4 950 by 62% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.98 | 2.32 |
| Recency | 16 March 2010 | 27 July 2017 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Cost | $200 | $60 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 28 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 60 Watt | 65 Watt |
The Xeon L5640 is our recommended choice as it beats the Athlon X4 950 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon L5640 is a server/workstation processor while Athlon X4 950 is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon L5640 and Athlon X4 950, 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.
