E-300 vs Xeon 5130

E-300 vs Xeon 5130 Performance Spectrum

E-300

2 / 2

1,176

+0.1%

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX

Ryzen Threadripper PRO 7955WX

Ryzen Threadripper 3990X

Xeon 5130

2 / 2

1,175

0.0%

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.

E-300 vs Xeon 5130 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.

E-300 vs Xeon 5130: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

E-300

2011

Why buy it

✅+0.1% higher PassMark.
✅Costs $256 less on MSRP ($60 MSRP vs $316 MSRP).
✅Delivers 427.1% more PassMark for each dollar spent, at 19.6 vs 3.7 PassMark/$ ($60 MSRP vs $316 MSRP).
✅Draws 18W instead of 65W, a 47W reduction.
✅Integrated graphics onboard with Radeon HD 6310, while Xeon 5130 needs a discrete GPU.

Trade-offs

❌Fewer obvious downsides in this matchup outside of normal market pricing swings.

Xeon 5130

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,175 vs 1,176).
❌Lower PassMark per dollar, at 3.7 vs 19.6 PassMark/$ ($316 MSRP vs $60 MSRP).
❌261.1% higher power demand at 65W vs 18W.
❌No integrated graphics, while E-300 can still boot and troubleshoot without a discrete GPU.

Quick Answers

So, is E-300 better than Xeon 5130?

Not really, because they are built for different jobs. Xeon 5130 makes more sense for workstation-style multi-core throughput, while E-300 is the more practical desktop choice for gaming, platform cost, and everyday use.

Which one is better for streaming, content creation, and heavy multitasking?

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, E-300 is the stronger fit. You are getting 0.1% better PassMark, backed by 2 cores and 2 threads.

Which one is the smarter buy today, not just the cheaper CPU?

E-300 is the better buy right now. E-300 comes in $256 cheaper on MSRP at $60 MSRP versus $316 MSRP, and it still gives you 0.1% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon 5130 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 0.1% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 427.1% better value on MSRP (19.6 vs 3.7 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

Which one is more future-proof for 2026 and beyond?

E-300 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2011 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 2 cores / 2 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

E-300 vs Xeon 5130 Technical Specifications

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

E-300

The E-300 is manufactured by AMD. It was released in 22 August 2011 (14 years ago). It is based on the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Max frequency: 1.3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 512K (per core). Built on 40 nm process technology. Socket: FT1. Thermal design power (TDP): 18 Watt. Memory support: DDR3. Passmark benchmark score: 1,176 points. Launch price was $69.

Xeon 5130

The Xeon 5130 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in Junho 2006 (19 years ago). It is based on the Woodcrest (2006) architecture. It features 2 cores and 2 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 65 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,175 points. Launch price was $16.

⚡

Processing Power

Both the E-300 and Xeon 5130 share an identical 2-core/2-thread configuration. Boost clocks reach 1.3 GHz on the E-300 versus 2 GHz on the Xeon 5130 — a 42.4% clock advantage for the Xeon 5130. The E-300 uses the Zacate (2011−2013) architecture (40 nm), while the Xeon 5130 uses Woodcrest (2006) (65 nm). In PassMark, the E-300 scores 1,176 against the Xeon 5130's 1,175 — a 0.1% lead for the E-300. Both processors carry 0 kB of L3 cache.

Feature	E-300	Xeon 5130
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	2 / 2
Boost Clock	1.3 GHz	2 GHz+54%
Base Clock	—	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	0 kB
L2 Cache	512K (per core)+12700%	4 MB
Process	40 nm-38%	65 nm
Architecture	Zacate (2011−2013)	Woodcrest (2006)
PassMark	1,176	1,175

🧠

Memory & Platform

The E-300 uses the FT1 socket (PCIe 2.0), while the Xeon 5130 uses LGA771 (PCIe 2.0) — making them incompatible on the same motherboard.

Feature	E-300	Xeon 5130
Socket	FT1	LGA771
PCIe Generation	PCIe 2.0	PCIe 2.0
Max RAM Speed	DDR3-1066	—
Max RAM Capacity	8 GB	—
RAM Channels	1	—
ECC Support	No	—
PCIe Lanes	0	—

🔧

Advanced Features

Virtualization: AMD-V (E-300) / not specified (Xeon 5130). The E-300 includes integrated graphics (Radeon HD 6310), while the Xeon 5130 requires a dedicated GPU. Primary use case: E-300 targets Budget Mobile.

Feature	E-300	Xeon 5130
Integrated GPU	Yes	—
IGPU Model	Radeon HD 6310	—
Unlocked	No	—
AVX-512	No	—
Virtualization	AMD-V	—
Target Use	Budget Mobile	—

💰

Value Analysis

At launch, the E-300 was priced at $60, while the Xeon 5130 came in at $316. On launch pricing ($60 vs $316), E-300 was $256 cheaper. In terms of value on MSRP (PassMark points per dollar), the E-300 delivers 19.6 pts/$ vs 3.7 pts/$ for the Xeon 5130 — making the E-300 the 136.2% better value option.

Feature	E-300	Xeon 5130
MSRP	$60-81%	$316
Performance per Dollar	19.6+430%	3.7
Release Date	2011	2006

Search E-300 on Amazon

Search Xeon 5130 on Amazon

Affiliate Disclosure

ChipVERSUS is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com. We may earn a commission on qualifying purchases made through our links. This comes at no additional cost to you and helps support our work in providing comprehensive PC building guides and tools.

Amazon and the Amazon logo are trademarks of Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates.