CPU Comparison

# Intel Xeon W3565 vs Intel Xeon W5590

The Intel Xeon W3565 and Intel Xeon W5590 are both end-of-life server/workstation processors from Intel, built on the 45 nm Nehalem architecture and sharing the same Intel Socket 1366 platform. Both chips offer 4 cores and 8 threads, have identical 130 W TDP ratings, and feature the same 8 MB shared L3 cache. The benchmark data shows the W3565 winning all five head-to-head Cinebench comparisons, albeit by narrow margins of 0.6-0.7%, while the W5590 holds a slight clock-speed advantage in its base and boost frequencies.

FAQ

Q: Which processor has the higher clock speed?

A: The Intel Xeon W5590 has a base clock of 3.33 GHz and a boost clock of 3.60 GHz, compared to the W3565's 3.20 GHz base and 3.47 GHz boost. Despite this, the W3565 wins all head-to-head benchmark comparisons.

Q: How do the two CPUs compare in multi-core Cinebench R23 performance?

A: The W3565 scores 2888 in Cinebench R23 multi-core, while the W5590 scores 2867. This gives the W3565 a 0.7% advantage, a difference of 21 points.

Q: What is the average benchmark score for each processor?

A: The W3565 has an average benchmark score of 993, while the W5590 has an average score of 986. Both processors sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs tracked.

Q: Do both processors support ECC memory?

A: Yes, both the Intel Xeon W3565 and the Intel Xeon W5590 support ECC memory, and both use triple-channel DDR3 memory.

Q: What are the closest rivals to the W3565 in the benchmark database?

A: The nearest rivals to the W3565 include the Intel Core i7-965, AMD Phenom II X6 1065T, and Intel Core i7-960, all with an average score of 993 (0% delta), and the Intel Core i3-8130U at 994 (-0.1% delta).

Q: Was the W5590 released with a launch MSRP?

A: Yes, the Intel Xeon W5590 had a launch MSRP of $1600. The W3565 has no launch MSRP listed in the data.

Architecture Differences

Both processors are built on Intel's 45 nm Nehalem architecture, but they come from different codename families within that generation. The Intel Xeon W3565 uses the "Bloomfield" codename, while the Intel Xeon W5590 uses "Gainestown." Despite this codename difference, the underlying architectural details are nearly identical.

The transistor count for both chips is exactly the same at 731 million, and the die size is identical at 263 mm². The cache hierarchy is also the same: 64 KB of L1 cache per core, 256 KB of L2 cache per core, and 8 MB of shared L3 cache. Both processors lack integrated graphics and have locked multipliers, meaning they are not unlocked for overclocking.

The key architectural distinction beyond the codename is the memory bandwidth specification. The W5590 lists a memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, while the W3565 does not have a memory bandwidth figure listed in the data. Both support DDR3 memory in a triple-channel configuration, and both have PCIe Gen 2 support. The W3565 was released on October 31, 2009, while the W5590 came earlier on August 8, 2009. Both are marked as end-of-life production status.

Head-to-Head Benchmarks

The head-to-head comparison across five Cinebench tests shows a consistent, if narrow, advantage for the Intel Xeon W3565. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the W3565 scores 290 against the W5590's 288, a 0.7% delta. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the W3565 posts 1212 versus 1204, again a 0.7% advantage. The single-core results follow the same pattern: Cinebench R20 single-core shows 170 for the W3565 and 169 for the W5590, a 0.6% delta.

The most substantial absolute gap appears in Cinebench R23 multi-core, where the W3565 scores 2888 and the W5590 scores 2867, a 0.7% difference of 21 points. The Cinebench R23 single-core test shows the W3565 at 407 and the W5590 at 404, a 0.7% delta. Across all five tests, the W3565 wins every single comparison, taking 5 wins to 0 for the W5590.

These results are notable because the W5590 has the higher clock speeds on paper, a 3.33 GHz base versus 3.20 GHz, and a 3.60 GHz boost versus 3.47 GHz. The data suggests that the W3565's slightly better benchmark performance does not translate from raw clock frequency, indicating other architectural factors or silicon variance play a role. The margins are small enough that they are unlikely to be perceptible in real-world workloads, but the pattern is consistent across all tested scenarios.

Specification Differences

The specification tables for these two processors differ in only a few fields. The base clock differs: the W3565 runs at 3.20 GHz, while the W5590 runs at 3.33 GHz. The boost clock also differs: 3.47 GHz for the W3565 versus 3.60 GHz for the W5590. The codename is another point of difference, with the W3565 being "Bloomfield" and the W5590 being "Gainestown."

The generation field also varies, with the W3565 listed under "Xeon (Bloomfield)" and the W5590 under "Xeon (Gainestown)." The release dates differ, with the W3565 launching on October 31, 2009, and the W5590 on August 8, 2009. The part numbers are distinct: SLBEV for the W3565 and SLBGE for the W5590. The W5590 has a launch MSRP of $1600, while the W3565 has no launch MSRP listed.

The W5590 also lists a memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, which is absent from the W3565's specification data. All other fields, cores, threads, TDP, socket, architecture, process node, foundry, transistors, die size, cache sizes, memory support, memory bus, ECC support, PCIe version, integrated graphics, market segment, and production status, are identical between the two parts.

Where Each One Wins

Based strictly on the benchmark data, the Intel Xeon W3565 wins every head-to-head comparison. It holds a 0.7% advantage in Cinebench R15 multi-core, Cinebench R20 multi-core, Cinebench R23 multi-core, and Cinebench R23 single-core, and a 0.6% advantage in Cinebench R20 single-core. For users prioritizing raw Cinebench scores, the W3565 is the clear choice in this pairing.

The W5590, however, offers higher clock speeds in both base and boost frequencies. The data does not show any benchmark where the W5590 wins, but its 3.33 GHz base clock and 3.60 GHz boost clock may be relevant for workloads that are sensitive to clock frequency in ways not captured by these specific Cinebench tests. The W5590 also has a documented memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s, which could matter for memory-intensive applications, though no memory benchmark data is provided to confirm a real-world advantage.

The W5590 was released earlier (August 2009) and carries a launch MSRP of $1600, giving it a defined market position at introduction. The W3565, with no launch MSRP, was released later in October 2009. Neither processor offers an unlocked multiplier, so overclocking potential is not a distinguishing factor between them.

The Verdict

The benchmark data is unambiguous: the Intel Xeon W3565 outperforms the Intel Xeon W5590 in every measured Cinebench test. The W3565's wins range from 0.6% to 0.7% across multi-core and single-core workloads, with the largest absolute margin being 21 points in Cinebench R23 multi-core. For workloads that rely on Cinebench-style rendering or single-threaded performance, the W3565 is the better pick.

The W5590 is not without its merits. Its higher base and boost clocks, 3.33 GHz and 3.60 GHz versus 3.20 GHz and 3.47 GHz, could theoretically benefit certain clock-bound tasks, and its listed memory bandwidth of 32.0 GB/s is a specification the W3565 does not document. However, none of these advantages translate into a benchmark win in the data provided.

Both processors share the same core count, thread count, cache configuration, TDP, socket, process node, and memory support. They are architecturally near-identical Nehalem parts, with the W3565 edging out the W5590 in practical performance tests despite the latter's frequency advantage. The average benchmark scores reinforce this: the W3565 averages 993 versus 986 for the W5590, and both sit at the 27th percentile among all CPUs, indicating they are closely matched in the broader market context.

For a buyer choosing between these two end-of-life Xeon processors, the data points squarely to the W3565 for raw benchmark performance. The W5590 offers higher clock specifications on paper, but the measured Cinebench results do not reflect any benefit from those frequencies. The W3565's consistent 0.7% lead across all tests, combined with its later release date, makes it the recommended pick in this head-to-head. The W5590 remains a viable option only if its specific clock specifications or documented memory bandwidth are critical requirements for a given workload, though no benchmark evidence supports that choice.