CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-1620 vs 965 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

5.6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon E5-1620 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5-1620  based on its performance, single-core performance, 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 E5-1620

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-1620

Report a correction
Much higher turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz vs 0 GHz Compared to all cpus, 3.8 GHz turbo clock speed is just OK
Much better performance per dollar 3.3 pt/$ vs 0.94 pt/$ More than 3.5x better performance per dollar
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 105.63W vs 152.93W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
More l3 cache 10 MB vs 6 MB More than 65% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Higher clock speed 3.6 GHz vs 3.4 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Much better performance per watt 7.47 pt/W vs 1.08 pt/W Around 7x better performance per watt
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,117 vs 1,361 More than 55% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 1.5 MB/core More than 65% more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 9,487 vs 5,916 More than 60% better PassMark score
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Much lower annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year vs 54.06 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost
Newer Mar, 2012 vs Nov, 2009 Release date over 2 years later
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year vs 152.42 $/year More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.7 GHz vs 4.22 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of AMD Phenom II X4 965

Reasons to consider the
AMD Phenom II X4 965

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-1620 vs Phenom II X4 965

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 E5-1620
2,460,000 MB/s
Phenom II X4 965
137,800 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-1620  vs
Phenom II X4 965 
Clock speed 3.6 GHz 3.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz 0 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 2011
AM3

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 130W 140W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 54.06 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 152.42 $/year
Performance per watt 7.47 pt/W 1.08 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 152.93W

bus

Clock speed 0 MHz 2,000 MHz

details

Xeon E5-1620  vs
Phenom II X4 965 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 10 MB 6 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 38 17
Voltage range 0.6 - 1.35V 0.85 - 1.43V
Operating temperature Unknown - 64°C Unknown - 62°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.93 GHz 4.05 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.7 GHz 4.22 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.93 GHz 4.05 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
Intel Xeon E5-1620
Report a correction
AMD Phenom II X4 965
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus