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 | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Xeon E5-4617 vs Itanium 9140N
clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
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  Report a correction |  Intel Itanium 9140N Report a correction |
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 | ||
