Winner
Intel Xeon E5-2690
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5-2690 based on its performance.
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 |
by Johan-De-Gelas (Sep, 2014)The second is that we still need to fine tune the configuration of our website to scale better with such high core counts.
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 |
by PCMagOverall performance is better than any other CPU on the market, save for Extreme Edition models.
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 | |
| $350 | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
