Winner
Intel Core i7 6700K
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 6700K based on its single-core performance, power consumption and value.
See full details Intel Xeon E5-2690 vs Core i7 6700K |
Released March, 2012
Intel Xeon E5-2690
- 2.9 GHz
- Octa core
5.5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5-2690
 | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB | | Significantly more l3 cache 20 MB |
| | More cores 8 | | 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
| | Significantly higher clock speed 4 GHz | | Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Higher turbo clock speed 4.2 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-2690 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
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| 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 | |||
| 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 better performance per watt | 7.64 pt/W | vs | 3.49 pt/W | Around 2.2x better performance per watt | |||
| Better PassMark score | 14,178 | vs | 11,109 | Around 30% better PassMark score | |||
| Supports more RAM | 393,216 MB | vs | 65,536 MB | Supports 6x more RAM | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 25% more l3 cache per core | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72 °C | vs | 64 °C | Around 15% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 4 GHz | vs | 2.9 GHz | Around 40% higher clock speed | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 14 nm | vs | 32 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 4.2 GHz | vs | 3.8 GHz | More than 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 73.94W | vs | 109.69W | Around 35% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 0.91 pt/$ | vs | 0.49 pt/$ | Around 85% better performance per dollar | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.61 GHz | vs | 3.53 GHz | More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,349 | vs | 1,853 | More than 25% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2015 | vs | Mar, 2012 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 21.92 $/year | vs | 32.52 $/year | Around 35% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 79.72 $/year | vs | 118.26 $/year | Around 35% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.77 GHz | vs | 3.92 GHz | More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-2690 vs Core i7 6700K
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
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5-2690 | vs | Core i7 6700K |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 4 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.8 GHz | 4.2 GHz | |
| Cores | Octa core | Quad core | |
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 | 135W | 91W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 32.52 $/year | 21.92 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 118.26 $/year | 79.72 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 7.64 pt/W | 3.49 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 109.69W | 73.94W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | FSB | |
| Number of links | 2 | 0 | |
| Transfer rate | 8,000 MT/s | 8,000 MT/s | |
details | Xeon E5-2690 | vs | Core i7 6700K |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 14 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72°C | Unknown - 64°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.53 GHz | 4.61 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.92 GHz | 4.77 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.53 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 | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3L-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 | 65,536 MB | |
 Intel Xeon E5-2690  Report a correction |  Intel Core i7 6700K Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $250 | |
| 6700K vs 6600K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $390 | |
| 6700K vs 5820K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $305 | |
| 6700K vs 6700 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $128 | |
| 6700K vs 8350 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS | |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
| | VS | |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
| | VS | |
| $350 | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||
 | VS |  |
| $125 | $50 | |
| 3220 vs 5300 | ||
