CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E3113 vs E3-1220 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

No winner declared

Too close to call

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 E3113

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E3113

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 1 MB 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 12x more l2 cache per core
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.93 GHz vs 3.49 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 65W Around 20% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 70.08 $/year Around 20% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 19.27 $/year Around 20% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of Intel Xeon E3-1220

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E3-1220

Report a correction
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,722 vs 1,270 More than 35% better PassMark (Single core) score
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Much better performance per watt 12.06 pt/W vs 1.86 pt/W Around 6.5x better performance per watt
Higher clock speed 3.1 GHz vs 3 GHz Around 5% higher clock speed
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Newer Apr, 2011 vs Sep, 2008 Release date over 2 years later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.1 GHz vs 3 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E3113 vs E3-1220

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E3113
2,427
Xeon E3-1220
6,076

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon E3113
1,270
Xeon E3-1220
1,722

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E3113  vs
E3-1220 
Clock speed 3 GHz 3.1 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 771
LGA 1155

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No 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 65W 80W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 19.27 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 70.08 $/year
Performance per watt 1.86 pt/W 12.06 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 65W

details

Xeon E3113  vs
E3-1220 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 6 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.93 GHz 3.49 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3 GHz 3.1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.93 GHz 3.49 GHz

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 FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Xeon E3113
Report a correction
Intel Xeon E3-1220
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus