0 Comments
| Intel Xeon E5440 vs Core2 Quad Q9650 |
Released November, 2007
Intel Xeon E5440
- 2.83 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5440
![]() | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 | ![]() | Lower typical power consumption 65W |
![]() | Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 6,294 | ![]() | Lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year |
VS
Released August, 2008
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650
- 3 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the Core2 Quad Q9650
![]() | Slightly higher clock speed 3 GHz | ![]() | Supports trusted computing Yes |
![]() | Better performance per dollar 0.41 pt/$ | ![]() | Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.15 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5440 vs Q9650 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 |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| ![]() | Intel Core2 Quad Q9650CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Lower typical power consumption | 65W | vs | 77.19W | More than 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 6,294 | vs | 5,792 | Around 10% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
Lower annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | vs | 22.89 $/year | More than 15% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Lower annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | vs | 83.22 $/year | More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
Slightly higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.83 GHz | More than 5% higher clock speed | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
Better performance per dollar | 0.41 pt/$ | vs | 0.22 pt/$ | Around 90% better performance per dollar | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.15 GHz | vs | 3.61 GHz | Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 71.4 °C | vs | 67 °C | More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Newer | Aug, 2008 | vs | Nov, 2007 | Release date 9 months later | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.25 GHz | vs | 3.96 GHz | More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5440 vs Core2 Quad Q9650
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5440
6,294
Core2 Quad Q9650
5,792
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5440
1,532
Core2 Quad Q9650
1,692
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5440
120,650 MB/s
Core2 Quad Q9650
128,200 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5440
5,178
Core2 Quad Q9650
5,442
GeekBench
Xeon E5440
5,178
Core2 Quad Q9650
7,010
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Xeon E5440
4,000
Core2 Quad Q9650
4,222
PassMark (Single Core)
Xeon E5440
1,208
Core2 Quad Q9650
1,267
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5440 | vs | Core2 Quad Q9650 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 3 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 771 | |||
LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
MMX | |||
SSE3 | |||
SSE | |||
SSE4.1 | |||
Supplemental SSE3 | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 80W | 95W | |
Annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 2 pt/W | 1.47 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 65W | 77.19W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,333 MHz |
details | Xeon E5440 | vs | Core2 Quad Q9650 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 4 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 12 MB | 12 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 45 nm | 45 nm | |
Transistor count | 820,000,000 | 820,000,000 | |
Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 8 | 9 | |
Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.35V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 67°C | Unknown - 71.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3.61 GHz | 4.15 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.96 GHz | 4.25 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.61 GHz | 4.15 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 |
Intel Xeon E5440 ![]() | Intel Core2 Quad Q9650 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | $969 | |
Q9650 vs E5450 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | $287 | |
Q9650 vs Q9550 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | $179 | |
Q9650 vs E8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | ||
Q9650 vs Q6600 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | $1,245 | |
Q9650 vs X5460 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | $912 | |
Q9650 vs X5450 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | ||
Q9650 vs QX9650 | ||
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 | ||