Xeon 5160 vs Xeon L5335

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.

Xeon 5160 vs Xeon L5335 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.

Xeon 5160 vs Xeon L5335: Pros, Cons & Final Verdict

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

Xeon 5160

2006

Why buy it

Trade-offs

❌Lower PassMark (1,715 vs 1,737).
❌60% higher power demand at 80W vs 50W.

Xeon L5335

2007

Why buy it

✅+1.3% higher PassMark.
✅Draws 50W instead of 80W, a 30W reduction.

Trade-offs

❌Launch MSRP is still $380 MSRP, while Xeon 5160 mostly shows up through inconsistent older-market listings.

Quick Answers

So, is Xeon L5335 better than Xeon 5160?

It depends on what you want from the system. For gaming, Xeon 5160 is ahead with a 2.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. For rendering, compiling, streaming, and heavier multitasking, Xeon L5335 pulls ahead with 1.3% better PassMark.

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

For streaming, content creation, and heavier multitasking, Xeon L5335 is the stronger fit. You are getting 1.3% better PassMark, backed by 4 cores and 4 threads.

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

Xeon L5335 is the better buy right now. Xeon L5335 comes in at an unclear MSRP at $380 MSRP versus unclear MSRP, and it still gives you 1.3% better PassMark. The compromise is that Xeon 5160 is still the better pure gaming CPU with a 2.4% average FPS lead across 50 shared CPU game tests in our data. It is also 100.0% better value on MSRP (4.6 vs 0.0 PassMark/$), so you are getting the faster CPU without taking a value hit on paper.

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

Xeon L5335 makes more sense long term for 2026 and beyond. You are getting a newer CPU generation (2007 vs 2006) and more multi-core headroom with 4 cores / 4 threads instead of 2/2. That extra compute headroom is more likely to matter as games, background tasks, and creator workloads get heavier.

Xeon 5160 vs Xeon L5335 Technical Specifications

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

Xeon 5160

The Xeon 5160 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 3 GHz, with boost up to 3 GHz. L3 cache: 0 kB. L2 cache: 4 MB. Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 80 Watt. Memory support: DDR2. Passmark benchmark score: 1,715 points. Launch price was $22.

Xeon L5335

The Xeon L5335 is manufactured by Intel. It was released in 13 August 2007 (18 years ago). It is based on the Clovertown (2006−2007) architecture. It features 4 cores and 4 threads. Base frequency is 2 GHz, with boost up to 2 GHz. L3 cache: 8 MB L2 Cache. L2 cache: 4 MB (total). Built on 65 nm process technology. Socket: LGA771. Thermal design power (TDP): 50 Watt. Memory support: DDR2, DDR3 Depends on motherboard. Passmark benchmark score: 1,737 points. Launch price was $380.

⚡

Processing Power

The Xeon 5160 packs 2 cores / 2 threads, while the Xeon L5335 offers 4 cores / 4 threads — the Xeon L5335 has 2 more cores. Boost clocks reach 3 GHz on the Xeon 5160 versus 2 GHz on the Xeon L5335 — a 40% clock advantage for the Xeon 5160 (base: 3 GHz vs 2 GHz). The Xeon 5160 uses the Woodcrest (2006) architecture (65 nm), while the Xeon L5335 uses Clovertown (2006−2007) (65 nm). In PassMark, the Xeon 5160 scores 1,715 against the Xeon L5335's 1,737 — a 1.3% lead for the Xeon L5335. L3 cache: 0 kB on the Xeon 5160 vs 8 MB L2 Cache on the Xeon L5335.

Feature	Xeon 5160	Xeon L5335
Cores / Threads	2 / 2	4 / 4+100%
Boost Clock	3 GHz+50%	2 GHz
Base Clock	3 GHz+50%	2 GHz
L3 Cache	0 kB	8 MB L2 Cache
L2 Cache	4 MB	4 MB (total)
Process	65 nm	65 nm
Architecture	Woodcrest (2006)	Clovertown (2006−2007)
PassMark	1,715	1,737+1%