Winner
Intel Xeon E5-2690
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5-2690 based on its single-core performance and value.
See full details Intel Xeon E5-4620 vs E5-2690 |
Released May, 2012
Intel Xeon E5-4620
- 2.2 GHz
- Octa core
5.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5-4620
 | Significantly lower typical power consumption 77.19W | | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 |
| | Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year | | Significantly lower annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year |
VS
Released March, 2012
Intel Xeon E5-2690
- 2.9 GHz
- Octa core
5.5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the E5-2690
| | Much higher clock speed 2.9 GHz | | Much higher turbo clock speed 3.8 GHz |
| | Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,853 | | Much more l3 cache 20 MB |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5-4620 vs E5-2690 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 | |
| 5.5 | 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 lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 109.69W | Around 30% lower typical power consumption | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 118.26 $/year | Around 30% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 32.52 $/year | Around 30% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Much higher clock speed | 2.9 GHz | vs | 2.2 GHz | More than 30% higher clock speed | |||
| Much higher turbo clock speed | 3.8 GHz | vs | 2.6 GHz | More than 45% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Much better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,853 | vs | 1,232 | More than 50% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Much more l3 cache | 20 MB | vs | 16 MB | 25% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.53 GHz | vs | 2.32 GHz | More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.92 GHz | vs | 2.2 GHz | Around 80% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| More l3 cache per core | 2.5 MB/core | vs | 2 MB/core | 25% more l3 cache per core | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5-4620 vs E5-2690
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
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5-4620 | vs | E5-2690 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 2.9 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 2.6 GHz | 3.8 GHz | |
| Cores | Octa core | Octa core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 2011 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 95W | 135W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | 32.52 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | 118.26 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 5.25 pt/W | 7.64 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 77.19W | 109.69W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | QPI | |
| Number of links | 2 | 2 | |
| Data rate | 57,600 MB/s | 64,000 MB/s | |
| Transfer rate | 7,200 MT/s | 8,000 MT/s | |
| Clock speed | 3,600 MHz | 4,000 MHz | |
details | Xeon E5-4620 | vs | E5-2690 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 16 | 16 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 16 MB | 20 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 2.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 32 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 4 | 2 | |
| Voltage range | 0.6 - 1.35V | 0.6 - 1.35V | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 0 | 7 | |
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.32 GHz | 3.53 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.2 GHz | 3.92 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.32 GHz | 3.53 GHz | |
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 | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3-1066 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| DDR3-800 | |||
| Channels | Quad Channel | Quad Channel | |
| Supports ECC | Yes | Yes | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 42,666.64 MB/s | 51,200 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 393,216 MB | 393,216 MB | |
 Intel Xeon E5-4620  Report a correction |  Intel Xeon E5-2690 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $2,086 | ||
| E5-2689 vs E5-2690 | ||
 | VS | |
| $2,032 | $2,086 | |
| 2690 v2 vs E5-2690 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,100 | $2,086 | |
| 3970X vs E5-2690 | ||
 | VS | |
| $2,086 | ||
| 6272 vs E5-2690 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,155 | $2,086 | |
| 2650 v2 vs E5-2690 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,594 | $2,086 | |
| E5-2670 vs E5-2690 | ||
 | VS | |
| $350 | $2,086 | |
| 6700K vs E5-2690 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
 | VS | |
| $350 | ||
| 7th Gen A12-9700P vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
