CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E3120 vs Q9650 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 E3120

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E3120

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 77.19W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Slightly higher clock speed 3.16 GHz vs 3 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.42 GHz vs 4.15 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per dollar 0.48 pt/$ vs 0.41 pt/$ More than 15% better performance per dollar
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 6 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 5,792 vs 2,995 Around 95% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.25 GHz vs 3.17 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E3120 vs Core2 Quad Q9650

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 E3120
134.6 MB/s
Core2 Quad Q9650
128,200 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E3120  vs
Core2 Quad Q9650 
Clock speed 3.16 GHz 3 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 775

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 65W 95W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 1.39 pt/W 1.47 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 77.19W

details

Xeon E3120  vs
Core2 Quad Q9650 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 6 MB 12 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 3 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 45 nm
Transistor count 410,000,000 820,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 9
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.4°C Unknown - 71.4°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.42 GHz 4.15 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.17 GHz 4.25 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.42 GHz 4.15 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 FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz
Intel Xeon E3120
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus