Intel Xeon E5410

The Intel Xeon E5410 is an end-of-life server and workstation processor built on Intel’s Core 2 architecture under the Harpertown codename. It packs 4 cores and 4 threads, with a base clock of 2.33 GHz, an 80 W TDP, and a 45 nm process node featuring 820 million transistors across a 2x 107 mm² die. Released in late 2007 with a launch MSRP of $256, this socket 771 part targets dual-processor server platforms, and benchmark data shows it sitting at the 13th percentile among all CPUs — a position that reflects its age but also its niche utility in legacy systems.

Benchmark Performance

The E5410’s average benchmark score is 594, which places it in a tight cluster with its nearest rivals. In Cinebench R23 multicore, the processor scores 1,727 points, while its single-core result is 243. These figures translate into a multicore-to-single-core ratio of roughly 7.1, indicating that the chip scales well when all four threads are engaged, but each individual core is modest by modern standards. The older Cinebench R20 multicore score of 725 and single-core score of 102 follow the same pattern, while the Cinebench R15 multicore result of 174 rounds out the dataset.

Against its nearest rivals, the E5410 is effectively tied with the Intel Xeon X5355 and the Intel Core i7-620M, both of which also average 594 points — the deltaPct is -0.1% in each case, meaning the E5410 is statistically indistinguishable from them. The Intel Core M-5Y51 and Intel Core i3-2102 both average 593 points, placing the E5410 a marginal 0.1% ahead of each. These deltas are so small that they fall within normal run-to-run variance; benchmark results indicate no meaningful performance gap among these four chips in aggregate scores. However, the E5410’s 13th percentile ranking across all CPUs underscores that this is a low-tier performer in the broader landscape, not just a chip that is slightly behind modern parts.

The practical takeaway from the numbers is that the E5410 delivers consistent multi-threaded throughput for its era, but its single-core scores are a bottleneck. For example, in Cinebench R23, the 243 single-core score is less than 15% of the multicore result, which suggests that workloads relying heavily on one thread will leave most of the chip’s capability idle. The 174-point R15 multicore result further confirms that the processor’s strength lies in parallel tasks, not in rapid-fire single-thread execution.

Who Should Consider It

Given the benchmark data, the E5410 is suited for very specific legacy workloads rather than general-purpose use. For multi-threaded rendering tasks, the Cinebench R23 multicore score of 1,727 and R20 multicore score of 725 indicate that the chip can handle modest parallel workloads, such as batch image processing or software compilation on older codebases, where four threads are sufficient. However, the 13th percentile ranking means it will lag severely behind any modern desktop processor, so it is only reasonable for systems where software compatibility with the Core 2 architecture is mandatory.

Gaming is not a recommended use case based on the numbers. The single-core scores of 243 (R23) and 102 (R20) are far below what contemporary games require, and even older titles that rely on two to four threads will struggle because the per-core performance is limited. Office productivity, such as word processing or spreadsheet work, could technically run, but the low percentiles suggest the experience would feel sluggish compared to any recent chip. The E5410’s real audience is administrators maintaining legacy server platforms that run specific enterprise software — for instance, older database or ERP applications that were compiled for socket 771 and do not benefit from newer instruction sets.

The 4-core, 4-thread configuration with no hyper-threading means the E5410 can only execute one thread per core. This is a limitation for heavily threaded modern applications, but for a 2007-era server part, it was a standard design. The ECC memory support (true) and dual-channel DDR2/DDR3 memory bus (depending on motherboard) suggest the intended environment was reliability-focused server racks, not consumer desktops.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The data reveals a stark contrast between the E5410’s single-thread and multi-thread capabilities. In Cinebench R23, the single-core score of 243 is roughly 14% of the multicore score of 1,727. This ratio indicates that the four cores scale almost linearly with thread count — a hallmark of a simple, non-turbo, non-hyper-threaded design. The base clock of 2.33 GHz is fixed; there is no boost clock listed, so the chip runs at a constant frequency under load, which explains the predictable scaling.

For real workloads, this means that any task which is primarily single-threaded — such as legacy spreadsheet macros, single-threaded scripting, or older game logic — will run at the pace of a single 2.33 GHz core. The R20 single-core score of 102 and R15 single-core score (not explicitly provided, but the R15 multicore of 174 implies a single-core value near 44) all point to the same conclusion: the E5410 is a parallel worker, not a responsive single-task performer. Conversely, tasks that can utilize all four cores, such as video encoding with old codecs or 3D rendering in software that scales well, will see near-quadruple throughput compared to single-threaded execution, as evidenced by the multicore scores being roughly 7.1x the single-core score in R23.

This behavior is typical of the Core 2 architecture, which lacked the sophisticated branch prediction and out-of-order execution found in later Intel designs. The data suggests that users must carefully match their workload to the chip’s parallel strengths; otherwise, they will experience severe performance penalties.

How It Compares

Intel Xeon X5355: The X5355 is the closest rival, with an average score of 594 and a deltaPct of -0.1% relative to the E5410. This means the two are effectively identical in aggregate benchmark performance. Both are socket 771 server parts from the same era, and the data confirms that neither holds a meaningful advantage in typical multi-threaded server tasks.

Intel Core i7-620M: Also averaging 594 with a -0.1% deltaPct, the i7-620M matches the E5410 overall. This is notable because the i7-620M is a mobile dual-core processor with hyper-threading, while the E5410 is a quad-core server chip. The aggregate score equality suggests that the i7-620M’s higher per-core efficiency offsets the E5410’s two additional physical cores in the averaged benchmarks.

Intel Core M-5Y51: The Core M-5Y51 averages 593, and the E5410 is 0.1% ahead. This ultra-low-power mobile chip, designed for fanless tablets and laptops, ties the E5410 in aggregate score. The comparison highlights how far mobile efficiency has come, as a 4.5 W-class part matches a 80 W server processor in this dataset.

Intel Core i3-2102: With an average of 593 and a deltaPct of 0.1%, the i3-2102 is a desktop dual-core from the Sandy Bridge generation. The E5410 edges it out by a hair in aggregate score, but the i3-2102’s newer architecture delivers far better single-thread performance (not reflected in the aggregate). This comparison underscores that the E5410’s lead, if any, is solely due to its four cores in multi-threaded tests.

Platform and Compatibility

The E5410 uses Intel Socket 771, a platform designed for dual-socket server motherboards. It supports DDR2 and DDR3 memory, but the specific type depends on the motherboard — a critical caveat for system builders. The memory bus is dual-channel, and ECC memory is supported, which aligns with the server/workstation market segment. PCIe Gen 2 is available, which is adequate for legacy expansion cards but far slower than modern PCIe 4.0 or 5.0 interfaces.

The processor is not multiplier-unlocked, so overclocking is not possible by conventional means. The part number is SLANWSLBBC, and the production status is end-of-life, meaning no new units are available from Intel. The 45 nm process node and 820 million transistors were advanced for 2007, but the architecture lacks modern features like integrated graphics, which is absent here. Upgrade path is limited to other socket 771 processors, such as the X5355 (which the data shows is a performance peer), but any upgrade would require sourcing used parts. The memory support being motherboard-dependent adds complexity, as not all 771 boards handle both DDR2 and DDR3.

FAQ

Q: How does the Intel Xeon E5410 perform in multi-threaded benchmarks?

A: The E5410 scores 1,727 in Cinebench R23 multicore, 725 in R20 multicore, and 174 in R15 multicore, indicating it handles parallel workloads moderately well for its generation.

Q: What is the E5410’s single-core performance?

A: In Cinebench R23 single-core, it scores 243, and in R20 single-core, it scores 102. These are low figures that reflect the 2.33 GHz base clock with no boost capability.

Q: Is the E5410 better than the Intel Xeon X5355?

A: No. The two processors have identical average benchmark scores of 594, with a deltaPct of -0.1%, meaning they perform essentially the same in aggregate.

Q: Does the E5410 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, ECC memory is supported. The memory type (DDR2 or DDR3) depends on the motherboard, and the memory bus is dual-channel.

Q: What socket does the E5410 require?

A: It uses Intel Socket 771, which is a server platform. The processor is end-of-life, so new motherboards are not produced for it.

Q: Can the E5410 be overclocked?

A: No, the multiplier is locked, and no boost clock is listed. The chip runs at a fixed base clock of 2.33 GHz.

Q: What is the E5410’s overall performance percentile?

A: It sits at the 13th percentile among all CPUs, meaning it outperforms only about 13% of processors in the benchmark database.