Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Core i5 2500K

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 2500K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500K

Report a correction
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 2.6 GHz More than 25% higher clock speed
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.98 GHz vs 2.61 GHz More than 90% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,863 vs 913 More than 2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better performance per watt 6.79 pt/W vs 2.04 pt/W More than 3.2x better performance per watt
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 72.6 °C vs 55 °C More than 30% higher Maximum operating temperature
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 6,383 vs 4,708 More than 35% better PassMark score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz vs 2.6 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Jun, 2009 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of AMD Opteron 2435

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 2435

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 3 MB vs 1 MB 3x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much lower typical power consumption 60.94W vs 112.55W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year vs 41.29 $/year 2.3x lower annual home energy cost
More threads 6 vs 4 2 more threads
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year vs 110.03 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 2500K vs Opteron 2435

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i5 2500K
2,530,000 MB/s
Opteron 2435
102.4 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 2500K  vs
Opteron 2435 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 2.6 GHz
Cores Quad core Hexa core
Socket type
LGA 1155
F
Is unlocked Yes No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 95W 75W
Annual home energy cost 41.29 $/year 18.07 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 110.03 $/year 65.7 $/year
Performance per watt 6.79 pt/W 2.04 pt/W
Typical power consumption 112.55W 60.94W

bus

Architecture DMI HyperTransport 3.0

details

Core i5 2500K  vs
Opteron 2435 
Threads 4 6
L2 cache 1 MB 3 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 6 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 2
Clock multiplier 33 13
Voltage range 1.2 - 1.5V 1 - UnknownV
Operating temperature 5 - 72.6°C 0 - 55°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.98 GHz 2.61 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz 2.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.98 GHz 2.61 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 3000 N/A
Latest DirectX 10.1 N/A
Number of displays supported 2 N/A
GPU clock speed 850 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,100 MHz N/A
3DMark06 5,275 N/A
Intel Core i5 2500K
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 2435
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus