Winner
Intel Core i7 6700K
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 6700K based on its performance and single-core performance.
See full details Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3 vs Core i7 6700K |
Released July, 2014
Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3
- 2.4 GHz
- Hexa core
- Unlocked
5.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3
 | Much better performance per dollar 4.08 pt/$ | | More l3 cache 15 MB |
| | Much better performance per watt 12.6 pt/W | | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 |
VS
Released July, 2015
Intel Core i7 6700K
- 4 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
8.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i7 6700K
| | Much higher clock speed 4 GHz | | Significantly higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-2620 v3 vs 6700K 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 | |
| 8.2 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core i7 6700KCPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better performance per dollar | 4.08 pt/$ | vs | 0.91 pt/$ | Around 4.5x better performance per dollar | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More l3 cache | 15 MB | vs | 8 MB | Around 90% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 12.6 pt/W | vs | 3.49 pt/W | More than 3.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Supports more RAM | 786,432 MB | vs | 65,536 MB | Supports 12x more RAM | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| More cores | 6 | vs | 4 | 2 more cores; run more applications at once | |||
| More threads | 12 | vs | 8 | 4 more threads | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 25% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.6 °C | vs | 64 °C | Around 15% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 69.06W | vs | 73.94W | More than 5% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 20.48 $/year | vs | 21.92 $/year | More than 5% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 74.46 $/year | vs | 79.72 $/year | More than 5% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 2.4 GHz | More than 65% higher clock speed | |||
| Significantly higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.2 GHz | More than 30% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 14 nm | vs | 22 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much better CompuBench 1.5 ocean surface simulation score | 302.88 fps | vs | 194.02 fps | More than 55% better CompuBench 1.5 ocean surface simulation score | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.61 GHz | vs | 2.66 GHz | Around 75% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,349 | vs | 1,683 | Around 40% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.77 GHz | vs | 2.87 GHz | More than 65% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Better PassMark score | 11,109 | vs | 9,977 | More than 10% better PassMark score | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2015 | vs | Jul, 2014 | Release date a year later | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2620 v3 vs Core i7 6700K
CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench
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 E5-2620 v3 | vs | Core i7 6700K |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.2 GHz | 4.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Hexa core | Quad core | |
| Is unlocked | Yes | Yes | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 85W | 91W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 20.48 $/year | 21.92 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 74.46 $/year | 79.72 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 12.6 pt/W | 3.49 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 69.06W | 73.94W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | FSB | |
| Number of links | 2 | 0 | |
| Transfer rate | 8,000 MT/s | 8,000 MT/s | |
details | Xeon E5-2620 v3 | vs | Core i7 6700K |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 12 | 8 | |
| L3 cache | 15 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 14 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.6°C | Unknown - 64°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.66 GHz | 4.61 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.87 GHz | 4.77 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.66 GHz | 4.61 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 530 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 350 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,150 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| 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 | 65,536 MB | |
 Intel Xeon E5-2620 v3  Report a correction |  Intel Core i7 6700K Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS | |
| $250 | $350 | |
| Intel Core i5 6600K vs i7 6700K | ||
 | VS | |
| $350 | ||
| AMD A12 7th Gen A12-9700P vs Intel Core i7 6700K | ||
 | VS | |
| $390 | $350 | |
| Intel Core i7 5820K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS | |
| $350 | ||
| AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 vs Intel Core i7 6700K | ||
 | VS | |
| $305 | $350 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700 vs 6700K | ||
 | VS | |
| $128 | $350 | |
| AMD FX 8350 vs Intel Core i7 6700K | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| Intel Core i5 2500 vs Xeon W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A8 6410 vs Intel Core i5 4200U | ||
| | VS | |
| $350 | $272 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 vs Intel Core i5 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| AMD A6 5200 vs Intel Core i5 3470 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $50 | $125 | |
| AMD A4 5300 vs Intel Core i3 3220 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| Intel Pentium N3540 vs Core i3 4005U | ||
