0 Comments
| Intel Xeon E5-4617 vs Itanium 9140N |
Released May, 2012
Intel Xeon E5-4617
- 2.9 GHz
- Hexa core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5-4617
![]() | Much higher clock speed 2.9 GHz | ![]() | More cores 6 |
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | ![]() | Has a NX bit Yes |
VS
Released October, 2007
Intel Itanium 9140N
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Itanium 9140N
![]() | Much more l3 cache per core 9 MB/core | ![]() | Significantly more l3 cache 18 MB |
![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core | ![]() | Significantly lower typical power consumption 84.5W |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much higher clock speed | 2.9 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 80% higher clock speed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
More cores | 6 | vs | 2 | Three times as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
More threads | 6 | vs | 4 | 2 more threads | |||
Newer | May, 2012 | vs | Oct, 2007 | Release date over 4 years later | |||
| |||||||
Much more l3 cache per core | 9 MB/core | vs | 2.5 MB/core | More than 3.5x more l3 cache per core | |||
Significantly more l3 cache | 18 MB | vs | 15 MB | 20% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.33 MB/core | More than 3x more l2 cache per core | |||
Significantly lower typical power consumption | 84.5W | vs | 105.63W | 20% lower typical power consumption | |||
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 91.1 $/year | vs | 113.88 $/year | 20% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | vs | 31.32 $/year | 20% lower annual home energy cost |
Features Key features of the Xeon E5-4617 vs Itanium 9140N
clock speed
Xeon E5-4617
2.9 GHz
Itanium 9140N
1.6 GHz
L2 cache
Xeon E5-4617
2 MB
Itanium 9140N
2 MB
L3 cache
Xeon E5-4617
15 MB
Itanium 9140N
18 MB
TDP
Xeon E5-4617
130W
Itanium 9140N
104W
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5-4617 | vs | Itanium 9140N |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.9 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
Cores | Hexa core | Dual core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | No | |
Supports trusted computing | Yes | No | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 130W | 104W | |
Annual home energy cost | 31.32 $/year | 25.05 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 113.88 $/year | 91.1 $/year | |
Typical power consumption | 105.63W | 84.5W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | QPI | FSB | |
Number of links | 2 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 3,600 MHz | 533 MHz |
details | Xeon E5-4617 | vs | Itanium 9140N |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 6 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.33 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
L3 cache | 15 MB | 18 MB | |
L3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | 9 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 32 nm | 90 nm | |
Max CPUs | 4 | 4 | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | None | None | |
Label | N/A | N/A | |
Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
3DMark06 | N/A | N/A |
Intel Xeon E5-4617 ![]() | Intel Itanium 9140N ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,611 | $2,086 | |
E5-4617 vs E5-2690 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,611 | $520 | |
E5-4617 vs X5650 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,611 | $410 | |
E5-4617 vs E5-2620 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,611 | $240 | |
E5-4617 vs 4690K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,611 | $1,000 | |
E5-4617 vs E5-4640 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,611 | $213 | |
E5-4617 vs 750 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,611 | $901 | |
E5-4617 vs E5-2640 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
847 vs 3217U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||