Intel Xeon E5-2680 vs AMD Opteron 61QS |
Released March, 2012
Intel Xeon E5-2680
- 2.7 GHz
- Octa core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5-2680
 | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | More l3 cache 20 MB |
| | Higher clock speed 2.7 GHz | | More threads 16 |
VS
Released March, 2010
AMD Opteron 61QS
- 2.3 GHz
- Octa core
Reasons to buy the AMD Opteron 61QS
| | Much more l2 cache 4 MB | | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 |
| | Lower typical power consumption 93.44W | | More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 45 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| More l3 cache | 20 MB | vs | 12 MB | More than 65% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher clock speed | 2.7 GHz | vs | 2.3 GHz | More than 15% higher clock speed | |||
| More threads | 16 | vs | 8 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Significantly more l3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | vs | 1.5 MB/core | More than 65% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.14 GHz | vs | 2.3 GHz | More than 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Newer | Mar, 2012 | vs | Mar, 2010 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.5 GHz | vs | 2.3 GHz | More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 4 MB | vs | 2 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 93.44W | vs | 105.63W | More than 10% lower typical power consumption | |||
| More l2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 27.7 $/year | vs | 31.32 $/year | More than 10% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 100.74 $/year | vs | 113.88 $/year | More than 10% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Xeon E5-2680 vs Opteron 61QS
clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
overclocked clock speed (air)
overclocked clock speed (water)
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5-2680 | vs | Opteron 61QS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.7 GHz | 2.3 GHz | |
| Cores | Octa core | Octa core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 2011 | |||
| G34 | |||
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 | |||
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | HyperTransport 3.0 | |
| Clock speed | 4,000 MHz | 3,200 MHz | |
details | Xeon E5-2680 | vs | Opteron 61QS |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 16 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 4 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 20 MB | 12 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | 1.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nm | 45 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 4 | |
| Clock multiplier | 35 | 11 | |
| Voltage range | 0.6 - 1.35V | 1 - UnknownV | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.14 GHz | 2.3 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.5 GHz | 2.3 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.14 GHz | 2.3 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 130W | 115W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 31.32 $/year | 27.7 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 113.88 $/year | 100.74 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 105.63W | 93.44W | |
 Intel Xeon E5-2680  Report a correction |  AMD Opteron 61QS Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $1,703 | $1,761 | |
| 2680 v2 vs E5-2680 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,155 | $1,761 | |
| 2650 v2 vs E5-2680 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,594 | $1,761 | |
| E5-2670 vs E5-2680 | ||
 | VS | |
| $294 | $1,761 | |
| E5-1620 vs E5-2680 | ||
 | VS | |
| $2,086 | $1,761 | |
| E5-2690 vs E5-2680 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,761 | ||
| E5-2689 vs E5-2680 | ||
 | VS | |
| $350 | $1,761 | |
| 6700K vs E5-2680 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $230 | $248 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $250 | |
| 6700K vs 6600K | ||
