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 Itanium 9520

Reasons to consider the
Intel Itanium 9520

Report a correction
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 8 vs 1 7 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
Significantly more l3 cache 20 MB vs 8 MB 2.5x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much lower typical power consumption 105.63W vs 178.75W More than 40% lower typical power consumption
Much more l3 cache per core 5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 5x more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year vs 53 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year vs 192.72 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD FX 9590

Reasons to consider the
AMD FX 9590

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 8 MB vs 2 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 4.7 GHz vs 1.73 GHz Around 2.8x higher clock speed
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Newer Jul, 2013 vs Nov, 2012 Release date 8 months later

Features Key features of the Itanium 9520  vs FX 9590 

clock speed

Itanium 9520
1.73 GHz
FX 9590
4.7 GHz

L2 cache

FX 9590
8 MB

L3 cache

Itanium 9520
20 MB
FX 9590
8 MB

TDP

FX 9590
220W

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Itanium 9520  vs
FX 9590 
Clock speed 1.73 GHz 4.7 GHz
Cores Quad core Octa core
Socket type
LGA 1248
AM3+

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 130W 220W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 53 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 192.72 $/year
Typical power consumption 105.63W 178.75W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC Yes Yes

details

Itanium 9520  vs
FX 9590 
Threads 8 8
L2 cache 2 MB 8 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 20 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 8 1

integrated graphics

GPU None None
Label N/A N/A
Latest DirectX N/A N/A
Number of displays supported N/A N/A
GPU clock speed N/A N/A
Turbo clock speed N/A N/A
3DMark06 N/A N/A
Intel Itanium 9520
Report a correction
AMD FX 9590
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus