A10-6800K vs Xeon X5670
Aggregate performance score
Xeon X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by an impressive 91% based on our aggregate benchmark results.
Primary details
Comparing Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in performance ranking | 1373 | 1822 |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Cost-effectiveness evaluation | 1.06 | 0.42 |
| Market segment | Server | Desktop processor |
| Series | Xeon (Desktop) | AMD A-Series (Desktop) |
| Architecture codename | Westmere-EP (2010−2011) | Richland (2013−2014) |
| Release date | 16 March 2010 (14 years ago) | 1 June 2013 (11 years ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | $67 | $142 |
| Current price | $44 (0.7x MSRP) | $109 (0.8x MSRP) |
Cost-effectiveness evaluation
Performance per price, higher is better.
Xeon X5670 has 152% better value for money than A10-6800K.
Detailed specifications
Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K 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 | 2.93 GHz | 4.1 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 4.4 GHz |
| Bus support | 6400 MHz | no data |
| L1 cache | 64 KB (per core) | 192 KB |
| L2 cache | 256 KB (per core) | 4096 KB |
| L3 cache | 12 MB (shared) | 0 KB |
| Chip lithography | 32 nm | 32 nm |
| Die size | 239 mm2 | 246 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 81 °C | 74 °C |
| Maximum case temperature (TCase) | no data | 74 °C |
| Number of transistors | 1,170 million | 1,303 million |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | - |
| Unlocked multiplier | No | Yes |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K 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 | FM2 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 100 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K. 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 | + |
| PowerTune | no data | - |
| TrueAudio | no data | - |
| PowerNow | no data | + |
| PowerGating | no data | + |
| Out-of-band client management | no data | - |
| VirusProtect | 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 X5670 and A10-6800K 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 X5670 and A10-6800K are enumerated here.
| AMD-V | no data | + |
| VT-d | + | no data |
| VT-x | + | no data |
| EPT | + | no data |
| IOMMU 2.0 | no data | + |
Memory specs
Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | DDR3 | DDR3-2133 |
| Maximum memory size | 288 GB | no data |
| Max memory channels | 3 | 2 |
| Maximum memory bandwidth | 32 GB/s | no data |
| ECC memory support | + | no data |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | AMD Radeon HD 8670D |
| Number of pipelines | no data | 384 |
| Enduro | no data | + |
| Switchable graphics | no data | 1 |
| UVD | no data | + |
| VCE | no data | + |
Graphics interfaces
Available interfaces and connections of Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K integrated GPUs.
| DisplayPort | no data | + |
| HDMI | no data | + |
Graphics API support
APIs supported by Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K integrated GPUs, sometimes API versions are included.
| DirectX | no data | DirectX® 11 |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K.
| PCIe version | 2.0 | 2.0 |
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 X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 91% 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 X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 91% 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%
Xeon X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 1% 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 X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 99% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core
Cinebench R10 is an ancient ray tracing benchmark for processors by Maxon, authors of Cinema 4D. Its single core version uses just one CPU thread to render a futuristic looking motorcycle.
Benchmark coverage: 20%
Xeon X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 8% in Cinebench 10 32-bit single-core.
Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 10 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R10 using all the processor threads. Possible number of threads is limited by 16 in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Xeon X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 98% in Cinebench 10 32-bit multi-core.
3DMark06 CPU
3DMark06 is a discontinued DirectX 9 benchmark suite from Futuremark. Its CPU part contains two scenarios, one dedicated to artificial intelligence pathfinding, another to game physics using PhysX package.
Benchmark coverage: 19%
Xeon X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 19% in 3DMark06 CPU.
Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core
Cinebench Release 11.5 Multi Core is a variant of Cinebench R11.5 which uses all the processor threads. A maximum of 64 threads is supported in this version.
Benchmark coverage: 17%
Xeon X5670 outperforms A10-6800K by 109% in Cinebench 11.5 64-bit multi-core.
Pros & cons summary
| Performance score | 3.94 | 2.06 |
| Recency | 16 March 2010 | 1 June 2013 |
| Physical cores | 6 | 4 |
| Threads | 12 | 4 |
| Cost | $67 | $142 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 95 Watt | 100 Watt |
The Xeon X5670 is our recommended choice as it beats the A10-6800K in performance tests.
Be aware that Xeon X5670 is a server/workstation processor while A10-6800K is a desktop one.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5670 and A10-6800K, 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.
