Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
3500 vs 5500 Processor
- Thread starter robrose20
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Gainestown rocks, the 3500 series doesn't.
It's as simple as that.
The 3500 Xeon is a rebranded Core i7 Bloomfield with ECC support.
It's as simple as that.
The 3500 Xeon is a rebranded Core i7 Bloomfield with ECC support.
I'm certainly not an expert, but I believe the 3500 is a workstation processor and the 5500 is a server grade processor. The 3500 runs at 130w and the 5500 at 80/95W. The 3500 cannot be installed in dual configurations.
Performance wise - I have no idea.
Could you clarify what that means in terms of relative performance/core between the two?
Aha. That does rock.
Could you clarify what that means in terms of relative performance/core between the two?
We haven't seen benchmarks on Gainestown in practice yet, but I would assume that the 3500 is only on par with the past Mac Pro line while Gainestown surpasses it.
The processors are the same at the clock same speeds. Xeon 5500s just let you have two working together. As for the actual performance of the configurations Apple sell, well that will have to wait for testing.
What is this based on? For an application that uses a single core will the 5500 beat the 3500?
What advantage does Gainestown have other than running cooler and dual processor configuration? They both have the same Nehalem architecture, right?
