Using a comment from the site one can calculate that the cluster gets a coremark score of 34K vs the xeon's 23K(leaving aside the SD card issue). comment: ""

Using a comment from the site one can calculate that the cluster gets a coremark score of 34K vs the xeon's 23K(leaving aside the SD card issue). comment: """ I went to Coremark website and compared the Coremark 1.0 scores of OMAP4430 running 2 forks and Intel Xeon E5405 (Quad Core @ 2 GHz) running 4 threads. OMAP 4 gets 5742.20 and Xeon E5405 gets 23579. (See screenshot below) http://www.cnx-software.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/benchmark_coremark_1.0_xeon_e5405_vs_TI_OMAP4430SDP.jpg http://www.cnx-software.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/bench... But I still think the Xeon server would probably perform (much) better than the pandaboard cluster during “real” tests because of the storage used in the pandaboards (SD Card or external USB storage). """