0 Comments
| Intel Xeon E5520 vs Core i7 920 |
Released March, 2009
Intel Xeon E5520
- 2.26 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E5520
![]() | Much lower typical power consumption 65W | ![]() | Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 12,384 |
![]() | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 | ![]() | Much lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year |
VS
Released October, 2008
Intel Core i7 920
- 2.66 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Core i7 920
![]() | Higher clock speed 2.66 GHz | ![]() | Higher turbo clock speed 2.93 GHz |
![]() | Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz | ![]() | Better geekbench 3 single core score 1,959 |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5520 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 |
No winner declared
Too close to call
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| ![]() | Intel Core i7 920CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much lower typical power consumption | 65W | vs | 135.63W | 2.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 12,384 | vs | 7,014 | More than 75% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
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 $/year | Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Better performance per watt | 2.4 pt/W | vs | 1.21 pt/W | Around 2x better performance per watt | |||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72 °C | vs | 67.9 °C | More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Newer | Mar, 2009 | vs | Oct, 2008 | Release date 6 months later | |||
| |||||||
Higher clock speed | 2.66 GHz | vs | 2.26 GHz | Around 20% higher clock speed | |||
Higher turbo clock speed | 2.93 GHz | vs | 2.53 GHz | More than 15% higher turbo clock speed | |||
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 3.28 GHz | Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Better geekbench 3 single core score | 1,959 | vs | 1,701 | More than 15% better geekbench 3 single core score | |||
Better performance per dollar | 0.61 pt/$ | vs | 0.49 pt/$ | Around 25% better performance per dollar |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5520 vs Core i7 920
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5520
12,384
Core i7 920
7,014
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5520
1,701
Core i7 920
1,959
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5520
102,200 MB/s
Core i7 920
143,700 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5520
7,188
Core i7 920
7,125
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon E5520
6,848
Core i7 920
7,791
GeekBench
Xeon E5520
8,874
Core i7 920
9,242
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Xeon E5520
4,453
Core i7 920
4,958
PassMark (Single Core)
Xeon E5520
1,024
Core i7 920
1,164
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E5520 | vs | Core i7 920 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.26 GHz | 2.66 GHz | |
Turbo clock speed | 2.53 GHz | 2.93 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
Socket type | |||
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 | 2.4 pt/W | 1.21 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 65W | 135.63W | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Memory type | |||
DDR3-1066 | |||
DDR3 | |||
DDR3-800 | |||
Channels | Triple Channel | Triple Channel | |
Supports ECC | Yes | No | |
Maximum bandwidth | 25,599.99 MB/s | 25,599.99 MB/s |
details | Xeon E5520 | vs | Core i7 920 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 8 | 8 | |
L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 45 nm | 45 nm | |
Transistor count | 731,000,000 | 731,000,000 | |
Max CPUs | 2 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 17 | 20 | |
Voltage range | 0.75 - 1.35V | 0.8 - 1.38V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 72°C | Unknown - 67.9°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3.28 GHz | 4.22 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.27 GHz | 4.24 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.28 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 | QPI | QPI | |
Number of links | 2 | 1 | |
Data rate | 46,928 MB/s | 19,200 MB/s | |
Transfer rate | 5,860 MT/s | 4,800 MT/s | |
Clock speed | 2,930 MHz | 2,400 MHz |
Intel Xeon E5520 ![]() | Intel Core i7 920 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$60 | $305 | |
920 vs W3520 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$60 | $777 | |
920 vs E5649 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$60 | $350 | |
920 vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$60 | $272 | |
920 vs 4790K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$60 | $220 | |
920 vs 2500K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$60 | $205 | |
920 vs 2400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$60 | $180 | |
920 vs 3470 | ||
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 | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
847 vs 3217U | ||