0 Comments
| Intel Itanium 9520 vs 9120N |
Released November, 2012
Intel Itanium 9520
- 1.73 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9520
![]() | Much more l3 cache 20 MB | ![]() | Much higher clock speed 1.73 GHz |
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | ![]() | More cores 4 |
VS
Released October, 2007
Intel Itanium 9120N
- 1.42 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the 9120N
![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core | ![]() | Significantly lower typical power consumption 84.5W |
![]() | Much more l3 cache per core 6 MB/core | ![]() | Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 91.1 $/year |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much more l3 cache | 20 MB | vs | 12 MB | More than 65% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much higher clock speed | 1.73 GHz | vs | 1.42 GHz | More than 20% higher clock speed | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits | |||
More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
Newer | Nov, 2012 | vs | Oct, 2007 | Release date over 5 years later | |||
| |||||||
Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
Significantly lower typical power consumption | 84.5W | vs | 105.63W | 20% lower typical power consumption | |||
Much more l3 cache per core | 6 MB/core | vs | 5 MB/core | 20% more l3 cache per core | |||
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 91.1 $/year | vs | 113.88 $/year | 20% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | vs | 31.32 $/year | 20% lower annual home energy cost |
Features Key features of the Itanium 9520 vs 9120N
clock speed
Itanium 9520
1.73 GHz
Itanium 9120N
1.42 GHz
L2 cache
Itanium 9520
2 MB
Itanium 9120N
2 MB
L3 cache
Itanium 9520
20 MB
Itanium 9120N
12 MB
TDP
Itanium 9520
130W
Itanium 9120N
104W
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9520 | vs | 9120N |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 1.42 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | No | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 130W | 104W | |
Annual home energy cost | 31.32 $/year | 25.05 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 113.88 $/year | 91.1 $/year | |
Typical power consumption | 105.63W | 84.5W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | QPI | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 3,200 MHz | 533 MHz |
details | Itanium 9520 | vs | 9120N |
---|---|---|---|
Threads | 8 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
L3 cache | 20 MB | 12 MB | |
L3 cache per core | 5 MB/core | 6 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 32 nm | 90 nm | |
Max CPUs | 8 | 4 | |
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 ![]() | Intel Itanium 9120N ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,350 | $3,750 | |
9520 vs 9550 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,350 | $230 | |
9520 vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,350 | $531 | |
9520 vs E5-2623 v3 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,350 | $885 | |
9520 vs E5-2643 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,350 | $3,838 | |
9520 vs 9350 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,350 | $946 | |
9520 vs 9310 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,350 | $125 | |
9520 vs 6100 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$125 | $50 | |
3220 vs 5300 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | ||
6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||