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 4610 v2

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5 4610 v2

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 21,993 vs 5,290 Around 4.2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Significantly more l3 cache 16 MB vs 3 MB More than 5.2x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 vs 1 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
More cores 8 vs 2 6 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 16 vs 4 12 more threads
Supports more RAM 786,432 MB vs 32,768 MB Supports 24x more RAM
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
More l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1.5 MB/core Around 35% more l3 cache per core
Newer Jan, 2014 vs Jan, 2013 Release date 11 months later
Front view of Intel Core i5 3230M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3230M

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Higher turbo clock speed 3.2 GHz vs 2.7 GHz Around 20% higher turbo clock speed
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 77.19W 2.7x lower typical power consumption
Much better performance per dollar 1.93 pt/$ vs 0.63 pt/$ More than 3x better performance per dollar
Higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 2.3 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 105 °C vs 75 °C 40% higher Maximum operating temperature
Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 2,543 vs 1,723 Around 50% better geekbench 3 single core score
Significantly better performance per watt 12.42 pt/W vs 8.03 pt/W Around 55% better performance per watt
Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 2.7x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 2.7x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5 4610 v2 vs Core i5 3230M

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

Xeon E5 4610 v2
894,100 MB/s
Core i5 3230M
2,110,000 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5 4610 v2  vs
Core i5 3230M 
Clock speed 2.3 GHz 2.6 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.7 GHz 3.2 GHz
Cores Octa core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 2011
rPGA 988B
Is unlocked No No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
F16C
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
EM64T
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling No Yes

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3L-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3L-1333
DDR3
Channels Quad Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 786,432 MB 32,768 MB

details

Xeon E5 4610 v2  vs
Core i5 3230M 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 16 4
L3 cache 16 MB 3 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 22 nm
Max CPUs 4 1
Clock multiplier 23 26
Operating temperature Unknown - 75°C Unknown - 105°C

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 4000
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,100 MHz

power consumption

TDP 95W 35W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 8.03 pt/W 12.42 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 28.44W

bus

Architecture QPI DMI
Number of links 2 1
Transfer rate 7,200 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Xeon E5 4610 v2
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 3230M
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus