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
Front view of Intel Core i7 2715QE

Intel Core i7 2715QE

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5420

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5420

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 1 MB 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 12x more l2 cache per core
Higher clock speed 2.5 GHz vs 2.1 GHz Around 20% higher clock speed
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.19 GHz vs 2.1 GHz More than 50% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.94 GHz vs 2.1 GHz Around 90% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Core i7 2715QE

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 2715QE

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better performance per dollar 2.17 pt/$ vs 0.41 pt/$ More than 5.2x better performance per dollar
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per watt 16.09 pt/W vs 1.78 pt/W More than 9x better performance per watt
Significantly lower typical power consumption 36.56W vs 65W Around 45% lower typical power consumption
Much higher Maximum operating temperature 100 °C vs 67 °C Around 50% higher Maximum operating temperature
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
More threads 8 vs 4 Twice as many threads
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Nov, 2007 Release date over 3 years later
Better PassMark score 5,365 vs 3,534 More than 50% better PassMark score
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,272 vs 1,073 Around 20% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 39.42 $/year vs 70.08 $/year Around 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 10.84 $/year vs 19.27 $/year Around 45% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5420 vs Core i7 2715QE

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 E5420
106,200 MB/s
Core i7 2715QE
1,690,000 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5420  vs
Core i7 2715QE 
Clock speed 2.5 GHz 2.1 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 771
BGA 1023

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No 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 80W 45W
Annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year 10.84 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year 39.42 $/year
Performance per watt 1.78 pt/W 16.09 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W 36.56W

details

Xeon E5420  vs
Core i7 2715QE 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 8
L2 cache 12 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 7 21
Operating temperature Unknown - 67°C Unknown - 100°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.19 GHz 2.1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.94 GHz 2.1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.19 GHz 2.1 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 3000
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,200 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Xeon E5420
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 2715QE
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus