CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E3-1290 v2 vs 3770 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

7.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core i7 3770 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3770  based on its power consumption and value.

See full details

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 Xeon E3-1290 v2

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E3-1290 v2

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 3.7 GHz vs 3.4 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
Slightly higher turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz vs 3.9 GHz More than 5% higher turbo clock speed
Front view of Intel Core i7 3770

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3770

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 2.33 pt/$ vs 0.3 pt/$ Around 7.8x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Significantly better performance per watt 7.25 pt/W vs 3.06 pt/W More than 2.2x better performance per watt
Lower typical power consumption 62.56W vs 70.69W More than 10% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 18.55 $/year vs 20.96 $/year More than 10% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 67.45 $/year vs 76.21 $/year More than 10% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E3-1290 v2 vs Core i7 3770

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E3-1290 v2
3,040 MB/s
Core i7 3770
2,660,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E3-1290 v2  vs
Core i7 3770 
Clock speed 3.7 GHz 3.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 4.1 GHz 3.9 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 1155

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 87W 77W
Annual home energy cost 20.96 $/year 18.55 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 76.21 $/year 67.45 $/year
Performance per watt 3.06 pt/W 7.25 pt/W
Typical power consumption 70.69W 62.56W

bus

Architecture DMI DMI
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 5,000 MT/s 5,000 MT/s

details

Xeon E3-1290 v2  vs
Core i7 3770 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 8
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 37 34

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 4000
Latest DirectX N/A 11.x
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,150 MHz
3DMark06 N/A 5,339.9

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 33,556.48 MB 32,768 MB
Intel Xeon E3-1290 v2
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 3770
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 1 comment.
The listed Geekbench AES Single Core score is wayyyyyy wrong for the i7... They don't do over 2 TB/s, no chip does that.
comments powered by Disqus