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 E5-2640V4

Intel E5-2640V4

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
Significantly higher clock speed 3.6 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 50% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 3.3 pt/$ vs 0.44 pt/$ Around 7.5x better performance per dollar
Higher turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz vs 3.4 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.93 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better performance per watt 7.47 pt/W vs 4.64 pt/W More than 60% better performance per watt
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,117 vs 1,854 Around 15% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 95% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel E5-2640V4

Reasons to consider the
Intel E5-2640V4

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 25 MB vs 10 MB 2.5x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Supports more RAM 1,572,864 MB vs 384,000 MB Supports more than 4x more RAM
Much lower typical power consumption 73.13W vs 105.63W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
More cores 10 vs 4 6 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 20 vs 8 12 more threads
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Significantly better PassMark score 15,348 vs 9,487 More than 60% better PassMark score
Newer Jan, 2016 vs Mar, 2012 Release date over 3 years later
Higher Maximum operating temperature 76 °C vs 64 °C Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual home energy cost 21.68 $/year vs 31.32 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 78.84 $/year vs 113.88 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-1620 vs E5-2640V4

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5-1620
9,487
E5-2640V4
15,348

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon E5-1620
2,117
E5-2640V4
1,854

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-1620  vs
E5-2640V4 
Clock speed 3.6 GHz 2.4 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz 3.4 GHz
Cores Quad core Deca core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 130W 90W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 21.68 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 78.84 $/year
Performance per watt 7.47 pt/W 4.64 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 73.13W

bus

Architecture QPI QPI
Number of links 0 2
Transfer rate 0 MT/s 8,000 MT/s
Clock speed 0 MHz 4,000 MHz

details

Xeon E5-1620  vs
E5-2640V4 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 20
L3 cache 10 MB 25 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 2.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 14 nm
Max CPUs 1 2
Operating temperature Unknown - 64°C Unknown - 76°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.93 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.7 GHz 2.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.93 GHz 2.4 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

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Channels Quad Channel Quad Channel
Supports ECC Yes Yes
Maximum memory size 384,000 MB 1,572,864 MB
Intel Xeon E5-1620
Report a correction
Intel E5-2640V4
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus