0 Comments
| Intel Itanium 9540 vs 9040 |
Released November, 2012
Intel Itanium 9540
- 2.13 GHz
- Octa core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9540
![]() | Much higher clock speed 2.13 GHz | ![]() | Much more l3 cache 24 MB |
![]() | More cores 8 | ![]() | More threads 16 |
VS
Released July, 2006
Intel Itanium 9040
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the 9040
![]() | Much more l2 cache 18 MB | ![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 9 MB/core |
![]() | Much more l3 cache per core 9 MB/core | ![]() | Much lower typical power consumption 84.5W |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much higher clock speed | 2.13 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 35% higher clock speed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much more l3 cache | 24 MB | vs | 18 MB | Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
More cores | 8 | vs | 2 | 6 more cores; run more applications at once | |||
More threads | 16 | vs | 4 | 12 more threads | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
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 | |||
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
Newer | Nov, 2012 | vs | Jul, 2006 | Release date over 6 years later | |||
| |||||||
Much more l2 cache | 18 MB | vs | 4 MB | 4.5x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 9 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 18x more l2 cache per core | |||
Much more l3 cache per core | 9 MB/core | vs | 3 MB/core | 3x more l3 cache per core | |||
Much lower typical power consumption | 84.5W | vs | 138.13W | Around 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 91.1 $/year | vs | 148.92 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | vs | 40.95 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost |
Features Key features of the Itanium 9540 vs 9040
clock speed
Itanium 9540
2.13 GHz
Itanium 9040
1.6 GHz
L2 cache
Itanium 9540
4 MB
Itanium 9040
18 MB
L3 cache
Itanium 9540
24 MB
Itanium 9040
18 MB
TDP
Itanium 9540
170W
Itanium 9040
104W
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9540 | vs | 9040 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.13 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
Cores | Octa core | Dual core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | No | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 170W | 104W | |
Annual home energy cost | 40.95 $/year | 25.05 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 148.92 $/year | 91.1 $/year | |
Typical power consumption | 138.13W | 84.5W | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Supports ECC | Yes | No |
details | Itanium 9540 | vs | 9040 |
---|---|---|---|
Threads | 16 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 4 MB | 18 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 9 MB/core | |
L3 cache | 24 MB | 18 MB | |
L3 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 9 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 | |
bus | |||
Architecture | QPI | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 3,200 MHz | 533 MHz |
Intel Itanium 9540 ![]() | Intel Itanium 9040 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,980 | ||
AMD A10 7th Gen A10-9600P vs Intel Itanium 9040 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | $1,980 | |
Intel Core i7 6700K vs Itanium 9040 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$230 | $2,650 | |
AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Itanium 9540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$4,650 | $2,650 | |
Intel Itanium 9560 vs 9540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,443 | $2,650 | |
Intel Xeon X5570 vs Itanium 9540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$240 | $2,650 | |
Intel Core i7 3820 vs Itanium 9540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$910 | $2,650 | |
Intel Itanium 9120N vs 9540 | ||
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 | ![]() |
$180 | ||
AMD A6 5200 vs Intel Core i5 3470 | ||