CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-1620 vs 3770

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

Winner
Intel Core i7 3770 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 3770  based on its .

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
Front view of Intel Core i7 3770

Intel Core i7 3770

CPUBoss Winner

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
Slightly higher clock speed 3.6 GHz vs 3.4 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Supports more RAM 384,000 MB vs 32,768 MB Supports around 11.8x more RAM
More l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 25% more l3 cache per core
Better performance per dollar 4.94 pt/$ vs 3.96 pt/$ Around 25% better performance per dollar
Front view of Intel Core i7 3770

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3770

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 32 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Lower typical power consumption 62.56W vs 105.63W More than 40% lower typical power consumption
Slightly better PassMark (Single core) score 2,072 vs 1,912 Around 10% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better performance per watt 15.41 pt/W vs 11.16 pt/W Around 40% better performance per watt
Lower annual commercial energy cost 67.45 $/year vs 113.88 $/year More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 18.55 $/year vs 31.32 $/year More than 40% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-1620 vs Core i7 3770

GeekBench (32-bit)

Xeon E5-1620
12,963
Core i7 3770
12,470

GeekBench (64-bit)

Xeon E5-1620
12,726
Core i7 3770
13,301

GeekBench

Xeon E5-1620
12,963
Core i7 3770
16,134

Passmark

Xeon E5-1620 Core i7 3770 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-1620  vs
Core i7 3770 
Clock speed 3.6 GHz 3.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz 3.9 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 2011
LGA 1155
Is hyperthreaded Yes Yes

features

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

power consumption

TDP 130W 77W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 18.55 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 67.45 $/year
Performance per watt 11.16 pt/W 15.41 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 62.56W

bus

Architecture QPI DMI
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 0 MT/s 5,000 MT/s

details

Xeon E5-1620  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 10 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nms 22 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 38 34
Operating temperature Unknown - 64°C Unknown - 67.4°C

gpu

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
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 51,200 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 384,000 MB 32,768 MB
Intel Xeon E5-1620
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 3770
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus