CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-2658 vs 3770K among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Xeon E5-2658
7.2
Core i7 3770K
6.2
FX 8350
6.2
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Xeon E5-2658
7.8
Core i7 3770K
9.4
FX 8350
8.4
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics
Xeon E5-2658
n.d.
Core i7 3770K
n.d.
FX 8350
n.d.
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing
Xeon E5-2658
0.0
Core i7 3770K
6.1
FX 8350
0.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?
Xeon E5-2658
5.0
Core i7 3770K
5.2
FX 8350
5.0
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?
Xeon E5-2658
n.d.
Core i7 3770K
8.1
FX 8350
8.5
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more
8.6

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets
Xeon E5-2658
5.5
Core i7 3770K
8.6
FX 8350
6.2

Winner
Intel Xeon E5-2658 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5-2658  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

Intel Xeon E5-2658

CPUBoss Winner
 Front view of Intel Xeon E5-2658
Front view of Intel Core i7 3770K

Intel Core i7 3770K

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5-2658

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5-2658

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
Significantly more l3 cache 20 MB vs 8 MB 2.5x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much lower typical power consumption 77.19W vs 114.97W Around 35% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better PassMark score 16,351 vs 9,544 More than 70% better PassMark score
More cores 8 vs 4 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
More threads 16 vs 8 Twice as many threads
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 88 °C vs 67.4 °C More than 30% higher Maximum operating temperature
Supports more RAM 393,216 MB vs 32,768 MB Supports 12x more RAM
More l3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 25% more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year vs 42.19 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year vs 112.39 $/year More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i7 3770K

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3770K

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.5 GHz vs 2.1 GHz More than 65% higher clock speed
Much higher turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 65% higher turbo clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 2.21 pt/$ vs 0.22 pt/$ Around 10x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Significantly newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Better PassMark (Single core) score 2,084 vs 1,694 Around 25% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better performance per watt 4.55 pt/W vs 3.47 pt/W More than 30% better performance per watt

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2658 vs Core i7 3770K

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5-2658
20,182
Core i7 3770K
13,098

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5-2658
2,547
Core i7 3770K
3,304

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5-2658
2,570 MB/s
Core i7 3770K
2,620,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5-2658
16,351
Core i7 3770K
9,544

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon E5-2658
1,694
Core i7 3770K
2,084

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Xeon E5-2658  vs
Core i7 3770K 
Clock speed 2.1 GHz 3.5 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.4 GHz 3.9 GHz
Cores Octa core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 2011
LGA 1155

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
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption
TDP 95W 77W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 42.19 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 112.39 $/year
Performance per watt 3.47 pt/W 4.55 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 114.97W

bus
Architecture QPI DMI
Number of links 2 1
Transfer rate 8,000 MT/s 5,000 MT/s

details

 Xeon E5-2658  vs
Core i7 3770K 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 16 8
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 20 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2.5 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 24 35
Voltage range 0.6 - 1.35V 1.33 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 88°C Unknown - 67.4°C

integrated graphics
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
DDR3-800
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 51,200 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 393,216 MB 32,768 MB
Intel Xeon E5-2658
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 3770K
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss