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 9560

Reasons to consider the
Intel Itanium 9560

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 2 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 8 vs 1 7 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
More threads 16 vs 2 14 more threads
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
Newer Nov, 2012 vs Jan, 2006 Release date over 6 years later
Front view of AMD Athlon 64 FX 60

Reasons to consider the
AMD Athlon 64 FX 60

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 89.38W vs 138.13W More than 35% lower typical power consumption
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 26.5 $/year vs 40.95 $/year More than 35% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 96.36 $/year vs 148.92 $/year More than 35% lower annual commercial energy cost

Features Key features of the Itanium 9560  vs Athlon 64 FX 60 

clock speed

Itanium 9560
2.53 GHz
Athlon 64 FX 60
2.6 GHz

L2 cache

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Itanium 9560  vs
Athlon 64 FX 60 
Clock speed 2.53 GHz 2.6 GHz
Cores Octa core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 1248
939

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes

details

Itanium 9560  vs
Athlon 64 FX 60 
Threads 16 2
L2 cache 4 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 8 1

power consumption

TDP 170W 110W
Annual home energy cost 40.95 $/year 26.5 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 148.92 $/year 96.36 $/year
Typical power consumption 138.13W 89.38W
Intel Itanium 9560
Report a correction
AMD Athlon 64 FX 60
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus