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 9550

Reasons to consider the
Intel Itanium 9550

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 32 MB vs None Compared to all cpus, 32 MB l3 cache is just OK
Higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 2.05 GHz More than 15% higher clock speed
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Front view of AMD Athlon Athlon™ 5350

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon Athlon™ 5350

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 20.31W vs 138.13W 6.8x lower typical power consumption
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Newer manufacturing process 28 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower annual home energy cost 6.02 $/year vs 40.95 $/year 6.8x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 21.9 $/year vs 148.92 $/year 6.8x lower annual commercial energy cost

Features Key features of the Itanium 9550  vs Athlon Athlon™ 5350 

clock speed

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Itanium 9550  vs
Athlon Athlon™ 5350 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2.05 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core

features

Has virtualization support Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 170W 25W
Annual home energy cost 40.95 $/year 6.02 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 148.92 $/year 21.9 $/year
Typical power consumption 138.13W 20.31W

details

Itanium 9550  vs
Athlon Athlon™ 5350 
Threads 8 4
L2 cache 2 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 32 MB None
Manufacture process 32 nm 28 nm

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Radeon™ R3
Latest DirectX N/A 12.0
GPU clock speed N/A 600 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Intel Itanium 9550
Report a correction
AMD Athlon Athlon™ 5350
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus