Xeon E-2124 vs W3565
Aggregate performance score
Xeon E-2124 outperforms Xeon W3565 by a whopping 106% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1859 | 1346 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 5.66 | 16.60 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Series | no data | Intel Xeon E |
| Power efficiency | 1.54 | 5.82 |
| Architecture codename | Bloomfield (2008−2010) | Coffee Lake-S (2017−2018) |
| Release date | 1 November 2009 (15 years ago) | 12 July 2018 (6 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $70 | $193 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon E-2124 has 193% better value for money than Xeon W3565.
Detailed specifications
Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124 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 | 4 (Quad-Core) | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.3 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.46 GHz | 4.3 GHz |
| Bus type | no data | DMI 3.0 |
| Bus rate | no data | 4 × 8 GT/s |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 256 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 1 MB |
| L3 cache | 8 MB (shared) | 8 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Die size | 263 mm2 | 126 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | no data | 100 °C |
| Number of transistors | 731 million | 1,400 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | + |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124 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 | 1 | 1 (Uniprocessor) |
| Socket | FCLGA1366 | FCLGA1151 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 71 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| vPro | no data | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | 2.0 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | - |
| TSX | - | + |
| Idle States | + | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 36 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | + | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| MPX | - | + |
| SGX | no data | Yes with Intel® ME |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124 are enumerated here.
| VT-d | no data | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4-2666 |
| Maximum memory size | 24 GB | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | 3 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 25.6 GB/s | 42.671 GB/s |
| ECC memory support | + | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | N/A | no data |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
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.
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 2.20 | 4.53 |
| Recency | 1 November 2009 | 12 July 2018 |
| Threads | 8 | 4 |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | 14 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 130 Watt | 71 Watt |
Xeon W3565 has 100% more threads.
Xeon E-2124, on the other hand, has a 105.9% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 8 years, a 221.4% more advanced lithography process, and 83.1% lower power consumption.
The Xeon E-2124 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon W3565 in performance tests.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3565 and Xeon E-2124, 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.
