Winner
Intel Core i7 4790
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4790 based on its performance, single-core performance and power consumption.
See full details Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3 vs Core i7 4790 |
Released July, 2014
Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3
- 3.5 GHz
- Quad core
5.3 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3
 | Much better performance per dollar 5.47 pt/$ | | Supports more RAM 786,432 MB |
| | Slightly more l3 cache 10 MB | | More l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core |
VS
Released May, 2014
Intel Core i7 4790
- 3.6 GHz
- Quad core
9.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i7 4790
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Much lower typical power consumption 68.25W |
| | Higher turbo clock speed 4 GHz | | Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,284 |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-1620 v3 vs 4790 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 | |
| 9.2 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core i7 4790CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better performance per dollar | 5.47 pt/$ | vs | 2.97 pt/$ | Around 85% better performance per dollar | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supports more RAM | 786,432 MB | vs | 32,768 MB | Supports 24x more RAM | |||
| Slightly more l3 cache | 10 MB | vs | 8 MB | 25% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 25% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Better performance per watt | 11.61 pt/W | vs | 10.77 pt/W | Around 10% better performance per watt | |||
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 68.25W | vs | 113.75W | 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 3.6 GHz | More than 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,284 | vs | 2,024 | Around 15% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | vs | 33.73 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | vs | 122.64 $/year | 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.72 °C | vs | 66.2 °C | Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-1620 v3 vs Core i7 4790
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
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5-1620 v3 | vs | Core i7 4790 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.5 GHz | 3.6 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.6 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| F16C | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| FMA3 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AES | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR | |||
| Channels | Quad Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | Yes | No | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 6,400 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 786,432 MB | 32,768 MB | |
details | Xeon E5-1620 v3 | vs | Core i7 4790 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 8 | |
| L3 cache | 10 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 66.2°C | Unknown - 72.72°C | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 4600 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 350 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,200 MHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 140W | 84W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 33.73 $/year | 20.24 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 122.64 $/year | 73.58 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 11.61 pt/W | 10.77 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 113.75W | 68.25W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | DMI 2.0 | |
| Number of links | 0 | 0 | |
| Transfer rate | 0 MT/s | 5,000 MT/s | |
 Intel Xeon E5-1620 v3  Report a correction |  Intel Core i7 4790 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $225 | |
| 4790 vs 4690 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $272 | |
| 4790 vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $305 | |
| 4790 vs 6700 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $280 | |
| 4790 vs 4770 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $240 | |
| 4790 vs 4690K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $190 | |
| 4790 vs 4460 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $305 | $240 | |
| 4790 vs 3770 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
Read more
Comments
Showing 1 comment.
