Athlon II X4 605e vs Xeon E5506

AMD

Athlon II X4 605e

4 Cores4 Thrd45 WWMax: 2.3 GHz2009
Similar parts
·······
VS
Intel

Xeon E5506

4 Cores4 Thrd80 WWMax: 0.13 GHz2009
Similar parts
·······

Athlon II X4 605e vs Xeon E5506 Performance Spectrum

About PassMark

PassMark CPU Mark evaluates processor speed through complex mathematical computations. It provides a reliable metric to compare multi-core performance, where higher scores indicate faster processing for multitasking, gaming, and heavy workloads.

Athlon II X4 605e vs Xeon E5506 FPS Benchmarks

Predicted gaming performance across popular games. Tested paired with GeForce RTX 5090 to isolate CPU performance.

Search any supported game below to compare 1080p FPS for both components.

Athlon II X4 605e vs Xeon E5506: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

See where each CPU makes more sense in practice: gaming, heavier work, platform cost, power draw, and upgrade path.

Athlon II X4 605e

2009

Why buy it

  • Better for gaming: +3.9% higher average FPS across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
  • Draws 45W instead of 80W, a 35W reduction.
  • 100+% more PCIe lanes (16 vs 0) for storage and expansion-heavy builds.
  • Includes a boxed cooler (AMD Stock), unlike Xeon E5506.

Trade-offs

  • Launch MSRP is still $143 MSRP, while Xeon E5506 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Xeon E5506

2009

Why buy it

    Trade-offs

    • Worse for gaming: lower average FPS than Athlon II X4 605e across 50 shared CPU benchmark tests.
    • Lower PassMark (1,961 vs 1,964).
    • 77.8% higher power demand at 80W vs 45W.
    • No boxed cooler included, unlike Athlon II X4 605e.

    Quick Answers

    So, is Athlon II X4 605e better than Xeon E5506?
    Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon E5506 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while Athlon II X4 605e is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.
    Which one is better for gaming?
    If gaming is the priority, Athlon II X4 605e is the better pick. According to our tests, it delivers 3.9% more average FPS across 50 shared CPU game tests.
    Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?
    For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Athlon II X4 605e is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.2% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.
    Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?
    Athlon II X4 605e is the better buy right now. Athlon II X4 605e comes in at an unclear MSRP at $143 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you a 3.9% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (13.7 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.
    Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?
    Athlon II X4 605e makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 4/4. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

    Athlon II X4 605e vs Xeon E5506 Technical Specifications

    Side-by-side specs, architecture details, clocks, memory, power, and platform differences.

    AMD

    Athlon II X4 605e

    The Athlon II X4 605e is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 20 October 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Propus (2009−2011) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.3 GHz, with boost up to 2.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: AM3. Thermal design power (TDP): 45 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,964 points. Launch price was $102.

    Intel

    Xeon E5506

    The Xeon E5506 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 30 March 2009 (16 years ago). It is based on the Gainestown (2009−2010) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2.13 GHz, with boost up to 0.13 GHz. L3 cache: 4 MB (total). L2 cache: 256 kB (per core). Built on 45 nm process technology. Socket: LGA1366. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,961 points. Launch price was $43.

    Processing Power

    Both the Athlon II X4 605e and Xeon E5506 share an identical 4-core/4-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 2.3 GHz on the Athlon II X4 605e versus 0.13 GHz on the Xeon E5506 — a 178.6% clock advantage for the Athlon II X4 605e (base: 2.3 GHz vs 2.13 GHz). The Athlon II X4 605e uses the Propus (2009−2011) architecture (45 nm), while the Xeon E5506 uses Gainestown (2009−2010) (45 nm). In PassMark, the Athlon II X4 605e scores 1,964 against the Xeon E5506's 1,961 — a 0.2% lead for the Athlon II X4 605e. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Athlon II X4 605e vs 4 MB (total) on the Xeon E5506.

    FeatureAthlon II X4 605eXeon E5506
    Cores / Threads
    4 / 4
    4 / 4
    Boost Clock
    2.3 GHz+1669%
    0.13 GHz
    Base Clock
    2.3 GHz+8%
    2.13 GHz
    L3 Cache
    0 kB
    4 MB (total)
    L2 Cache
    512 kB (per core)+100%
    256 kB (per core)
    Process
    45 nm
    45 nm
    Architecture
    Propus (2009−2011)
    Gainestown (2009−2010)
    PassMark
    1,964
    1,961
    Cinebench R23 Multi
    1,140
    Geekbench 6 Single
    300
    Geekbench 6 Multi
    1,069
    🧠

    Memory & Platform

    The Athlon II X4 605e uses the AM3 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon E5506 uses LGA1366 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

    FeatureAthlon II X4 605eXeon E5506
    Socket
    AM3
    LGA1366
    PCIe Generation
    PCIe 2.0
    PCIe 2.0
    Max RAM Speed
    DDR3-1333
    Max RAM Capacity
    32 GB
    RAM Channels
    2
    ECC Support
    No
    PCIe Lanes
    16
    🔧

    Advanced Features

    Virtualization: AMD-V (Athlon II X4 605e) / not specified (Xeon E5506). Primary use case: Athlon II X4 605e targets Desktop.

    FeatureAthlon II X4 605eXeon E5506
    Integrated GPU
    No
    Unlocked
    No
    AVX-512
    No
    Virtualization
    AMD-V
    Target Use
    Desktop