Xeon E5606 vs W3670

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon W3670
2010
6 cores / 12 threads, 130 Watt
4.06
+172%
Xeon E5606
2011
4 cores / 4 threads, 80 Watt
1.49

Xeon W3670 outperforms Xeon E5606 by a whopping 172% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14152162
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.280.43
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency2.961.76
Architecture codenameGulftown (2010−2011)Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
Release date29 August 2010 (14 years ago)14 February 2011 (13 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$295$46

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon W3670 has 430% better value for money than Xeon E5606.

Detailed specifications

Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606 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)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads124
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.13 GHz
Boost clock speed3.46 GHz0.13 GHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache12 MB (shared)8 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size239 mm2239 mm2
Maximum core temperature68 °Cno data
Number of transistors1,170 million1,170 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606 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 configuration12
SocketFCLGA1366FCLGA1366,LGA1366
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI++
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Demand Based Switching++
PAE36 Bit40 Bit

Security technologies

Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size24 GB288 GB
Max memory channels33
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606.

PCIe version2.02.0

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 W3670 4.06
+172%
Xeon E5606 1.49

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 W3670 6449
+173%
Xeon E5606 2365

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 W3670 521
+58.4%
Xeon E5606 329

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 W3670 2351
+126%
Xeon E5606 1040

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.06 1.49
Recency 29 August 2010 14 February 2011
Physical cores 6 4
Threads 12 4
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 80 Watt

Xeon W3670 has a 172.5% higher aggregate performance score, and 50% more physical cores and 200% more threads.

Xeon E5606, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 5 months, and 62.5% lower power consumption.

The Xeon W3670 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5606 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon W3670 and Xeon E5606, 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 W3670
Xeon W3670
Intel Xeon E5606
Xeon E5606

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 43 votes

Rate Xeon W3670 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.1 19 votes

Rate Xeon E5606 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon W3670 or Xeon E5606, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.