Intel Xeon E5506

The Intel Xeon E5506 is a 45nm Nehalem-based server processor from the Gainestown generation, released in 2009 and now end-of-life. It offers four physical cores without Hyper-Threading, resulting in four threads, and operates at a fixed 2.13 GHz base clock with no boost capability. This analysis draws exclusively from the supplied benchmark data to characterize its performance, thermal behavior, and platform fit.

Benchmark Performance

The benchmark results place the Xeon E5506 in the lower performance tier of the CPU landscape. Its average benchmark score is 573, which corresponds to a percentile rank of just 12 among all CPUs tracked in the database. In practical terms, this means the processor outperforms only roughly one-eighth of the processors cataloged, a figure that underscores its age and entry-level positioning within the server segment at the time of its release.

Multi-threaded workloads show modest absolute numbers. In Cinebench R15 multi-core, the chip scores 167 points. Moving to Cinebench R20 multi-core, the score rises to 699, and in Cinebench R23 multi-core, it reaches 1666. These scores are consistent with a four-core, four-thread design running at a modest clock speed. The progression across R15, R20, and R23 is not directly comparable because each Cinebench version scales its scoring differently, but the relative position against contemporary rivals remains informative.

The chip's direct rival set is remarkably tight. The Intel Core i7-740QM and AMD Athlon II X4 610e both post an average score of exactly 573, representing a delta of 0% against the Xeon E5506. The Intel Core i7-820QM scores 573 as well but with a delta of 0.1%, indicating a statistically negligible edge of less than one point. The AMD Athlon II X4 605e averages 574, which translates to a delta of -0.2%, meaning the Xeon is actually 0.2% behind that specific rival. These deltas are so small that they fall within typical run-to-run variance for benchmark testing. The data shows a cluster of four processors separated by no more than 0.3 percentage points, effectively a performance tie across all four parts.

The average benchmark score of 573 is the central reference point. It matches the i7-740QM and the Athlon II X4 610e exactly, and it sits just one point below the Athlon II X4 605e. The Xeon's Cinebench R23 multi-core score of 1666, when viewed against its sub-20 percentile ranking, indicates that modern rendering or heavily threaded tasks will produce low frame rates or long render times. For legacy server workloads, however, the raw throughput may still suffice for lightweight virtualization or basic database operations.

Power and Thermals

The Xeon E5506 carries a thermal design power (TDP) of 80 watts. This is a modest figure for a server processor of its era, particularly one built on a 45nm process node. The 45nm manufacturing process, coupled with a 731 million transistor count and a die size of 263 mm², contributes to this manageable thermal envelope. An 80W TDP class implies that a capable air cooler is sufficient for most installations; there is no need for exotic liquid cooling or oversized tower heatsinks. In a server chassis with adequate airflow, a standard passive heatsink or a low-profile active cooler would handle the thermal load without difficulty.

The absence of a boost clock means the processor always operates at its 2.13 GHz base frequency under load. This constant clock behavior simplifies thermal management: the chip cannot spike to higher frequencies that would momentarily increase heat output. Consequently, cooling requirements are predictable and steady-state. The 80W figure also positions the chip favorably for dense server deployments where power density and cooling capacity are constrained. Compared to higher-TDP workstation parts of the same generation, the E5506 would run cooler and quieter, assuming equivalent cooling solutions.

For users repurposing this processor in a desktop board, the 80W TDP is easily handled by mainstream air coolers. The data does not specify cooler dimensions or noise levels, but the wattage alone indicates a low thermal burden. The end-of-life production status means that thermal solutions are no longer being optimized for this part, but existing coolers from its 2009 era remain adequate. The 45nm node, while old by modern standards, does not suffer from the extreme heat density issues seen in later high-frequency parts.

Single-Thread vs Multi-Thread Behavior

The split between single-thread and multi-thread performance reveals a processor heavily skewed toward parallel throughput relative to its own single-core capability. In Cinebench R20, the multi-core score is 699 while the single-core score is 98. That represents a multi-core to single-core ratio of approximately 7.1x, which is far higher than the 4x ratio one would expect from four identical cores with perfect scaling. This discrepancy arises because single-thread scores in modern Cinebench versions penalize older architectures more severely; the Nehalem core design, with its lower IPC (instructions per clock) compared to later Intel and AMD cores, scores poorly on single-thread tests.

In Cinebench R23, the multi-core score of 1666 contrasts with a single-core score of 235. The ratio here is approximately 7.1x again, confirming a consistent pattern across two different benchmark versions. This means that for any workload that cannot utilize more than one thread, the E5506 will perform poorly. Single-threaded tasks such as legacy database transactions, certain scripting workloads, or lightly threaded applications will see performance roughly equivalent to a low-end dual-core processor from a later era. The single-core score of 235 in R23 places it far below any modern chip; even budget mobile processors from the last five years typically exceed 1000 in that test.

For real-world workloads, the implication is clear: the E5506 is best suited for tasks that scale across all four cores. Multi-threaded rendering, video encoding, or scientific computing that can utilize four threads will extract near-linear scaling, as evidenced by the 7.1x multi-to-single ratio. Conversely, any workload that is latency-sensitive or single-thread-bound will be severely bottlenecked. The data suggests a processor that was designed for throughput-oriented server tasks, not interactive or responsive desktop use. The lack of a boost clock compounds this, as there is no headroom for transient single-thread bursts.

How It Compares

Intel Core i7-740QM: This mobile quad-core processor matches the Xeon E5506 exactly with an average score of 573 and a delta of 0%. The two chips perform identically in aggregate benchmarks, despite the i7-740QM being a laptop part. The Xeon offers the same core count and similar clock behavior, but the i7 benefits from a more modern memory controller in mobile form. In practice, the Xeon's advantage lies in its server platform features, such as ECC memory support, rather than raw speed.

AMD Athlon II X4 610e: Another exact tie at 573 average score with 0% delta. This AMD part is a low-power desktop chip, also running four cores at a modest clock. The comparison highlights that by the late 2000s, AMD's quad-core offerings had caught up to Intel's server-class entry point in pure throughput. The Xeon's ECC support and triple-channel memory controller are the differentiators, not computational speed.

Intel Core i7-820QM: The i7-820QM posts an average score of 573 with a delta of 0.1%, meaning it edges out the Xeon by a fraction of a point. This mobile quad-core processor includes Hyper-Threading, giving it eight threads, yet its aggregate score barely exceeds the four-thread Xeon. This suggests that the i7's higher clock speed compensates for its lower core count efficiency, but the margin is negligible. In multi-threaded tests, the Xeon's four physical cores may actually perform more consistently due to the absence of thread-switching overhead.

AMD Athlon II X4 605e: This is the only rival that leads the Xeon, with an average score of 574 and a delta of -0.2%. The margin is one point, which is immaterial in real-world terms. The 605e is a 45W part, meaning it achieves the same performance as the 80W Xeon while consuming significantly less power. This comparison reveals that the Xeon's higher TDP does not translate into higher performance; it reflects the less efficient server-oriented design and older memory architecture.

FAQ

Q: Does the Intel Xeon E5506 support ECC memory?

A: Yes, the FACT PACK lists ECC memory support as true, making it suitable for error-correcting server workloads.

Q: What is the multi-core score in Cinebench R23?

A: The Cinebench R23 multi-core score is 1666, while the single-core score is 235.

Q: How does the E5506 compare to the AMD Athlon II X4 605e?

A: The E5506 has an average benchmark score of 573, while the Athlon II X4 605e scores 574. This gives the AMD part a delta of -0.2%, meaning the E5506 is 0.2% slower.

Q: What is the processor's TDP and what cooling does it require?

A: The TDP is 80 watts, which implies a capable air cooler is sufficient. The constant 2.13 GHz base clock with no boost keeps thermal output steady.

Q: Is the multiplier unlocked for overclocking?

A: No, the multiplier unlocked field is false, so the processor cannot be overclocked via multiplier adjustment.

Q: What is the release date of the E5506?

A: The release date is March 29, 2009, and the production status is end-of-life.

Platform and Compatibility

The Xeon E5506 uses the Intel Socket 1366 interface, a platform designed for dual-socket servers and high-end workstations. The architecture is Nehalem, with the codename Gainestown, placing it in Intel's first generation of Core-based server processors. The chip is built on a 45nm process node with 731 million transistors on a 263 mm² die. Memory support is DDR3 with a triple-channel bus, which provides higher bandwidth than the dual-channel designs common on consumer platforms of the same era. ECC memory is supported, a critical feature for server reliability.

PCIe support is Gen 2, which was the standard at the time of release. The socket 1366 platform typically offers multiple PCIe lanes for expansion, though the exact lane count is not specified in the FACT PACK. The platform also supports dual-socket configurations, meaning two E5506 processors could be installed in a single motherboard, though the benchmark data provided only reflects a single processor. The upgrade path from this platform is limited; socket 1366 was succeeded by socket 2011, which is not pin-compatible. Users looking to upgrade would need to replace the motherboard and memory in addition to the CPU.

The memory bus is triple-channel, which requires either three or six DDR3 modules to fully utilize bandwidth. The chip does not have integrated graphics, so a discrete GPU is mandatory for any display output. The market segment is explicitly Server/Workstation, and the production status is end-of-life, meaning no new units are being manufactured. The part number is SLBF8, which identifies the specific stepping. For any modern application, the platform's limitations in PCIe generation and memory speed will be apparent, but for legacy server workloads, the combination of four cores, ECC memory, and triple-channel DDR3 remains functional.