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

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
Much higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 1.9 GHz Around 75% 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 geekbench 3 single core score 2,994 vs 969 More than 3x better geekbench 3 single core score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.98 GHz vs 2.52 GHz Around 2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 6.79 pt/W vs 1.23 pt/W More than 5.5x better performance per watt
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 9,382 vs 7,596 Around 25% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz vs 1.9 GHz More than 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Mar, 2010 Release date 9 months later
Front view of AMD Opteron 6168

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 6168

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 1 MB 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 vs 1 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
More cores 12 vs 4 Three times as many cores; run more applications at once
More l3 cache 12 MB vs 6 MB 2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Significantly lower typical power consumption 93.44W vs 112.55W More than 15% lower typical power consumption
More threads 12 vs 4 Three times as many threads
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 27.7 $/year vs 41.29 $/year Around 35% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 100.74 $/year vs 110.03 $/year Around 10% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 2500K vs Opteron 6168

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 6168
75,500 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 2500K  vs
Opteron 6168 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 1.9 GHz
Cores Quad core Duodeca core
Socket type
LGA 1155
G34
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

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

details

Core i5 2500K  vs
Opteron 6168 
Threads 4 12
L2 cache 1 MB 6 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 6 MB 12 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 4
Clock multiplier 33 9
Voltage range 1.2 - 1.5V 1.19 - UnknownV
Operating temperature 5 - 72.6°C Unknown - 55°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 3,179 1
Overclocked clock speed 4.98 GHz 2.52 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.88 GHz 1.9 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.98 GHz 2.52 GHz

power consumption

TDP 95W 115W
Annual home energy cost 41.29 $/year 27.7 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 110.03 $/year 100.74 $/year
Performance per watt 6.79 pt/W 1.23 pt/W
Typical power consumption 112.55W 93.44W

bus

Architecture DMI HyperTransport 3.0
Intel Core i5 2500K
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 6168
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus