Atom x7809C vs Xeon X5660
Aggregate performance score
Atom x7809C outperforms Xeon X5660 by an impressive 57% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Contents
Primary details
Comparing processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | 1763 | 1381 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 3.05 | 32.00 |
| Market segment | Server | Laptop |
| Power efficiency | 1.52 | 9.08 |
| Designer | Intel | Intel |
| Manufacturer | Intel | Intel |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Amston Lake (2024−2025) |
| Release date | 16 March 2010 (16 years ago) | 8 April 2024 (2 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $33 | $117 |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Atom x7809C has 949% better value for money than Xeon X5660.
Performance to price scatter graph
Detailed specifications
Xeon X5660 and Atom x7809C 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) | 8 (Octa-Core) |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Base clock speed | 2.8 GHz | 2 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 3.6 GHz |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 96 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 2 MB (per module) |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 6 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | no data |
| Maximum core temperature | 81 °C | no data |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | no data |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X5660 and Atom x7809C 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 | Intel BGA 1264 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 25 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5660 and Atom x7809C. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | Intel® SSE4.2 | no data |
| AES-NI | + | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | 1.0 | no data |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | + | no data |
| Idle States | + | no data |
| Demand Based Switching | + | no data |
| PAE | 40 Bit | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon X5660 and Atom x7809C 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 X5660 and Atom x7809C are enumerated here.
| VT-d | + | + |
| VT-x | + | + |
| EPT | + | no data |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5660 and Atom x7809C. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR4, DDR5 |
| Maximum memory size | 288 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | no data |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | - |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5660 and Atom x7809C.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 3.0 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 9 |
Synthetic benchmarks
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.
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.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.42 | 5.38 |
| Recency | 16 March 2010 | 8 April 2024 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 8 |
| Threads | 12 | 8 |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 10 nm |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 25 Watt |
Xeon X5660 has 50% more threads.
Atom x7809C, on the other hand, has a 57% higher aggregate performance score, an age advantage of 14 years, 33% more physical cores, a 220% more advanced lithography process, and 280% lower power consumption.
The Intel Atom x7809C is our recommended choice as it beats the Intel Xeon X5660 in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon X5660 is a server/workstation processor while Atom x7809C is a notebook one.
Other comparisons
We've compiled a selection of CPU comparisons, ranging from closely matched processors to other comparisons that may be of interest.
