CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5450 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

5.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Xeon E5450 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5450  based on its power consumption and value.

See full details

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

Intel Xeon E5450

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Xeon E5450

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5450

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5450

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 3.77 pt/$ vs 0.58 pt/$ Around 6.5x better performance per dollar
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
Lower annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 15% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 15% lower annual home energy cost
Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Report a correction
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
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

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5450 vs Core2 Quad Q9650

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 E5450
128,600 MB/s
Core2 Quad Q9650
128,200 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5450  vs
Core2 Quad Q9650 
Clock speed 3 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 2.1 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 E5450  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 9 9
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.35V 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 67°C Unknown - 71.4°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.84 GHz 4.16 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.22 GHz 4.54 GHz
PassMark (Overclocked) 2,962.7 1,473.2
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.84 GHz 4.16 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 E5450
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus