Winner
Intel Core i7 920
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 920 based on its performance and single-core performance.
See full details Intel Xeon E5320 vs Core i7 920 |
Released November, 2006
Intel Xeon E5320
- 1.86 GHz
- Quad core
4.4 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5320
 | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much lower typical power consumption 65W |
| | Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core | | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 |
VS
Released October, 2008
Intel Core i7 920
- 2.66 GHz
- Quad core
4.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i7 920
| | Significantly higher clock speed 2.66 GHz | | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm |
| | Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score 1,959 | | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5320 vs 920 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 | |
| 4.7 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core i7 920CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much lower typical power consumption | 65W | vs | 135.63W | 2.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 8x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | vs | 48.38 $/year | 2.5x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | vs | 134.55 $/year | Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 2.66 GHz | vs | 1.86 GHz | Around 45% higher clock speed | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly better geekbench 3 single core score | 1,959 | vs | 1,028 | More than 90% better geekbench 3 single core score | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 2.81 GHz | More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.24 GHz | vs | 1.87 GHz | More than 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2008 | vs | Nov, 2006 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5320 vs Core i7 920
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 E5320 | vs | Core i7 920 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.86 GHz | 2.66 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 771 | |||
| LGA 1366 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 80W | 130W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | 48.38 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | 134.55 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.52 pt/W | 1.21 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 65W | 135.63W | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Supports ECC | No | No | |
details | Xeon E5320 | vs | Core i7 920 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
| Transistor count | 582,000,000 | 731,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 7 | 20 | |
| Voltage range | 1 - 1.5V | 0.8 - 1.38V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 66°C | Unknown - 67.9°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.81 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 1.87 GHz | 4.24 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.81 GHz | 4.22 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 | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | QPI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 2,400 MHz | |
 Intel Xeon E5320  Report a correction |  Intel Core i7 920 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $60 | $305 | |
| 920 vs W3520 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $60 | $777 | |
| 920 vs E5649 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $60 | $205 | |
| 920 vs 2400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $60 | $350 | |
| 920 vs 6700K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $60 | $272 | |
| 920 vs 4790K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $60 | $180 | |
| 920 vs 3470 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $60 | $220 | |
| 920 vs 2500K | ||
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 |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
