CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-2620 vs 2350 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

5.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon E5-2620 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5-2620  based on its performance.

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 E5-2620

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-2620

Report a correction
Much more l3 cache 15 MB vs 2 MB 7.5x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Is unlocked Yes vs No Somewhat common; An unlocked multiplier allows for easier overclocking
Much better PassMark score 7,957 vs 2,820 More than 2.8x better PassMark score
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Much better performance per watt 6.57 pt/W vs 1.54 pt/W More than 4.2x better performance per watt
More threads 12 vs 4 Three times as many threads
Significantly newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much more l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 5x more l3 cache per core
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.28 GHz vs 2 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Newer Mar, 2012 vs Sep, 2007 Release date over 4 years later
Front view of AMD Opteron 2350

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 2350

Report a correction
Lower typical power consumption 60.94W vs 77.19W More than 20% lower typical power consumption
Significantly more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.33 MB/core More than 50% more l2 cache per core
Lower annual commercial energy cost 65.7 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 20% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 18.07 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2620 vs Opteron 2350

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5-2620  vs
Opteron 2350 
Clock speed 2 GHz 2 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 2011
F
Is unlocked Yes No

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 95W 75W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 18.07 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 65.7 $/year
Performance per watt 6.57 pt/W 1.54 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 60.94W

bus

Clock speed 3,600 MHz 1,000 MHz

details

Xeon E5-2620  vs
Opteron 2350 
Threads 12 4
L2 cache 2 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 15 MB 2 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 2 2
Clock multiplier 25 10
Voltage range 0.6 - 1.35V 1 - UnknownV
Operating temperature Unknown - 77.4°C 0 - 55°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.28 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2 GHz 2 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.28 GHz 2 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 E5-2620
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 2350
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus