Intel Itanium 9520 vs 9310 |
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 more l2 cache 2 MB |
| | More cores 4 | | Higher clock speed 1.73 GHz |
VS
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 | 10 MB | 2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much 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 cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Higher clock speed | 1.73 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 10% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Newer | Nov, 2012 | vs | Feb, 2010 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| |||||||
| CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the 9310 vs the 9520. | |||||||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9520 vs 9310
clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9520 | vs | 9310 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.73 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1248 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 130W | 130W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 31.32 $/year | 31.32 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 113.88 $/year | 113.88 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 105.63W | 105.63W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | QPI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Data rate | 25,600 MB/s | 19,200 MB/s | |
| Transfer rate | 6,400 MT/s | 4,800 MT/s | |
| Clock speed | 3,200 MHz | 2,400 MHz | |
details | Itanium 9520 | vs | 9310 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 8 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 20 MB | 10 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 5 MB/core | 5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nm | 65 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 8 | 8 | |
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 |  Intel Itanium 9310 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $230 | $1,350 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Itanium 9520 | ||
 | VS | |
| $3,750 | $1,350 | |
| Intel Itanium 9550 vs 9520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $1,980 | $946 | |
| Intel Itanium 9040 vs 9310 | ||
 | VS | |
| $946 | ||
| Texas Instruments OMAP 4 (4430) vs Intel Itanium 9310 | ||
 | VS | |
| $946 | ||
| Samsung Exynos 5 Octa vs Intel Itanium 9310 | ||
 | VS | |
| $3,838 | $946 | |
| Intel Itanium 9350 vs 9310 | ||
 | VS | |
| $305 | $946 | |
| Intel Xeon E5-2609 vs Itanium 9310 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| Intel Core i5 2500 vs Xeon W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A8 6410 vs Intel Core i5 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 vs Intel Core i5 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| Intel Pentium N3540 vs Core i3 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron 847 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $250 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs i5 6600K | ||
