CPU Comparison

The Intel Processor N95 and Intel Xeon W3580 represent two very different eras of Intel silicon, yet both land at the 29th percentile among all CPUs in the database. The N95 is a modern, low-power mobile chip built on a 10 nm process, while the W3580 is a 45 nm server/workstation part from 2009. Despite the Xeon's age, it holds its own in one multi-threaded workload, but the N95 dominates in single-core performance and efficiency. Below is a breakdown of what the data actually shows.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has more cores and threads?

A: Both have 4 cores, but the Intel Xeon W3580 supports 8 threads via Hyper-Threading, while the Intel Processor N95 has 4 threads total.

Q: How do their cache configurations compare?

A: The N95 has 96 KB of L1 cache per core, 2 MB of shared L2, and 6 MB of shared L3. The W3580 has 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 8 MB of shared L3.

Q: Which CPU supports ECC memory?

A: Only the Intel Xeon W3580 supports ECC memory. The Intel Processor N95 does not.

Q: What is the difference in their production status?

A: The Intel Processor N95 is listed as Active, while the Intel Xeon W3580 is End-of-life.

Q: Which chip wins in Cinebench R23 single-core performance?

A: The Intel Processor N95 wins decisively, scoring 914 compared to the W3580's 436, a delta of 109.6% in favor of the N95.

Q: Are their overall average benchmark scores close?

A: Yes, they are nearly identical. The N95 has an average benchmark score of 1070, and the W3580 scores 1064, a difference of less than 1%.

Architecture Differences

The architectural gap between these two processors is generational. The Intel Processor N95 uses the Gracemont architecture on a 10 nm process, built for the Alder Lake-N family. It is a mobile-oriented chip with a 15 W TDP, soldered to an Intel BGA 1264 socket. Its cache hierarchy is split with 96 KB of L1 per core and a shared 2 MB L2, plus 6 MB of shared L3. It supports DDR4 and DDR5 memory over a single-channel bus with 38.4 GB/s of bandwidth, and it lacks ECC support. The N95 also includes integrated UHD Graphics 710 and PCIe Gen 3 with 9 lanes.

The Intel Xeon W3580, by contrast, is a Nehalem-based part (codename Bloomfield) from the Xeon lineup. It is manufactured on a 45 nm process with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. It uses the Intel Socket 1366 and has a much higher 130 W TDP. Its cache design is more traditional for the era: 64 KB of L1 per core, 256 KB of L2 per core, and a larger 8 MB of shared L3. It supports only DDR3 memory but through a triple-channel bus, and it does support ECC memory. The W3580 has no integrated graphics and uses PCIe Gen 2. Its production status is End-of-life, while the N95 remains Active.

The Verdict

The benchmark results indicate a clear split. The Intel Processor N95 is the better choice for any workload that prioritizes single-core speed and modern platform features. It wins Cinebench R15 multi-core (445 vs 311, a 43.1% lead) and Cinebench R23 single-core (914 vs 436, a 109.6% lead). The Xeon W3580, however, takes the Cinebench R23 multi-core test (3092 vs 2769, a 10.4% lead), meaning it can still outpace the N95 in heavily threaded rendering tasks despite its age.

For a builder deciding between the two, the data suggests the N95 is the more practical all-rounder for everyday use, thanks to its massive single-core advantage and lower power draw. The W3580 is only preferable if you need ECC memory support or if your specific multi-threaded workload scales well with its extra threads and larger L3 cache. Since the W3580 is end-of-life and the N95 is active, the N95 is the more forward-looking option from a support perspective.

Specification Differences

The two processors differ in nearly every major specification category. The N95 has a base clock of 100.00 MHz and a boost clock of 3.40 GHz; the W3580 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz and a boost of 3.60 GHz. The N95's TDP is 15 W, while the W3580's is 130 W. The N95 uses a 10 nm process and the Gracemont architecture, whereas the W3580 uses a 45 nm process and the Nehalem architecture. The N95 is a mobile chip, the W3580 is a server/workstation chip.

Memory support is another major divergence: the N95 supports DDR4 and DDR5 with a single-channel bus, while the W3580 supports only DDR3 but with a triple-channel bus. ECC memory is available only on the W3580. The N95 has integrated UHD Graphics 710; the W3580 has none. PCIe generations differ as well, with the N95 using Gen 3 and the W3580 using Gen 2. The N95's cache is 96 KB L1 per core, 2 MB shared L2, and 6 MB shared L3; the W3580 has 64 KB L1 per core, 256 KB L2 per core, and 8 MB shared L3. Finally, the N95 is Active and was released in 2023, while the W3580 is End-of-life and was released in 2009.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head results show a dominant performance from the N95 in two of three tests, but the W3580 takes the most demanding multi-threaded workload. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the N95 scores 445 against the W3580's 311, a 43.1% advantage. This is a significant margin, suggesting the N95's modern architecture is far more efficient at lower thread counts.

In Cinebench R23 multi-core, the tables turn. The W3580 scores 3092, beating the N95's 2769 by 10.4%. This is likely due to the W3580's 8 threads versus the N95's 4 threads, as well as its larger 8 MB L3 cache. The W3580 may be old, but its extra thread count gives it a real edge in this sustained multi-threaded render.

The single-core Cinebench R23 test is a blowout. The N95 scores 914, while the W3580 manages only 436. That is a 109.6% delta in favor of the N95. This result underscores the massive IPC improvements Intel has made since the Nehalem era. The N95's single-core performance is more than double that of the W3580, which will make a visible difference in everyday tasks and lightly-threaded applications.

Where Each One Wins

The Intel Processor N95 wins in scenarios that rely on single-core performance and modern platform features. Its 109.6% lead in Cinebench R23 single-core makes it the clear pick for general desktop responsiveness, web browsing, office applications, and any software that is not fully multi-threaded. It also wins Cinebench R15 multi-core by 43.1%, indicating it handles moderate thread counts better than the W3580. The N95's integrated UHD Graphics 710 means it can operate without a discrete GPU, which is not possible with the W3580. Its 15 W TDP also makes it suitable for compact, low-power systems, whereas the W3580's 130 W TDP demands serious cooling and power delivery.

The Intel Xeon W3580 wins in one specific but important area: heavily multi-threaded workloads. Its 10.4% lead in Cinebench R23 multi-core shows that its 8 threads and 8 MB L3 cache still matter for rendering or other parallel tasks. The W3580 also supports ECC memory, making it viable for error-tolerant computing in server or workstation environments. Its triple-channel DDR3 memory bus may offer higher bandwidth potential in certain memory-intensive scenarios, though the database does not list a bandwidth figure for it. For a builder with a legacy Socket 1366 platform or a need for ECC, the W3580 remains a functional option in multi-core rendering, despite its end-of-life status.

In summary, the N95 is the better choice for most users due to its single-core dominance and active production status. The W3580 is a niche pick for multi-threaded rendering and ECC-capable systems, where its 10.4% multi-core lead can be leveraged.