Xeon 5150 vs. E5320

Author:  Jason Jacobs Date:  2007.03.29 Topic:  Processors Provider:  Intel Manufacturer:  Intel

Benchmarks Continued:

As you can see Code Creatures benefits most from raw speed topping the E5320 by a full 15 frames/sec average. Code creatures was run at 1024x768 with Anti-Aliasing off. With both scores over 90fps you are still at excellent framerates in either case.

The Crystalmark application is interesting in that it utilized exactly half the number of cores present for the E5320 test while utilizing all four cores in the 5150 test. It seems that this application has been optimized to run on up for 4 cores but not up to 8. Compare the ALU score to that of the Sisoft Sandra E5320 ALU score in which Sisoft does utilize all present cores and you will see the score is roughly half. Expanding upon this theory if we were to double the ALU score then the two tests come out very close.

As you can see this test is also not multi-core aware and only utilized one CPU or core during all tests. In such a case its easy to see why the raw speed (MHz) of the 5150 came out ahead. It is worth pointing out that in each of these tests the HDD scores benefit from multiple CPU's and come out ahead of the 5150 enabled system each time.

A mixed set of results here, its obvoius that 3D tasks are still optimized to take advantage of speed instead of multi-cores. In the CPU and rendering portion the E5320 takes full advantage of multiple cpu's rendering the image much faster than the 5150.

As you can see the 5150 and E5320 scores are virtually identical. This shows the limitation of the video card in the system although we had expected a larger margin in the 5150's lead.

On to the Conclusion