0 Comments
| Intel Itanium 9320 vs Core i7 4770K |
Released February, 2010
Intel Itanium 9320
- 1.33 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9320
![]() | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 8 | ![]() | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB |
![]() | More l3 cache 16 MB | ![]() | Much more l3 cache per core 4 MB/core |
VS
Released June, 2013
Intel Core i7 4770K
- 3.5 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the Core i7 4770K
![]() | Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz | ![]() | Much higher turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz |
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm | ![]() | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 8 | vs | 1 | 7 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Significantly more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 1 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
More l3 cache | 16 MB | vs | 8 MB | 2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
Much more l3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 2x more l3 cache per core | |||
More l2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| |||||||
Much higher clock speed | 3.5 GHz | vs | 1.33 GHz | Around 2.8x higher clock speed | |||
Much higher turbo clock speed | 3.9 GHz | vs | 1.47 GHz | Around 2.8x higher turbo clock speed | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
Much lower typical power consumption | 68.25W | vs | 125.94W | More than 45% lower typical power consumption | |||
Newer | Jun, 2013 | vs | Feb, 2010 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | vs | 37.34 $/year | More than 45% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | vs | 135.78 $/year | More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost |
Features Key features of the Itanium 9320 vs Core i7 4770K
clock speed
Itanium 9320
1.33 GHz
Core i7 4770K
3.5 GHz
turbo clock speed
Itanium 9320
1.47 GHz
Core i7 4770K
3.9 GHz
L2 cache
Itanium 9320
2 MB
Core i7 4770K
1 MB
L3 cache
Itanium 9320
16 MB
Core i7 4770K
8 MB
TDP
Itanium 9320
155W
Core i7 4770K
84W
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9320 | vs | Core i7 4770K |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.33 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
Turbo clock speed | 1.47 GHz | 3.9 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 155W | 84W | |
Annual home energy cost | 37.34 $/year | 20.24 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 135.78 $/year | 73.58 $/year | |
Typical power consumption | 125.94W | 68.25W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | QPI | DMI 2.0 | |
Number of links | 1 | 0 | |
Transfer rate | 4,800 MT/s | 5,000 MT/s |
details | Itanium 9320 | vs | Core i7 4770K |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 8 | 8 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
L3 cache | 16 MB | 8 MB | |
L3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 65 nm | 22 nm | |
Max CPUs | 8 | 1 | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | None | GPU | |
Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 4600 | |
Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
GPU clock speed | N/A | 350 MHz | |
Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,250 MHz |
Intel Itanium 9320 ![]() | Intel Core i7 4770K ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $272 | |
4770K vs 4790K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $192 | |
4770K vs 4670K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $128 | |
4770K vs 8350 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $264 | |
4770K vs 3770K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $260 | |
4770K vs 4820K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $305 | |
4770K vs 4790 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
6600K vs 6700K | ||