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!

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5620

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5620

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.4 GHz vs 0.41 GHz More than 5.8x higher clock speed
Much higher turbo clock speed 2.66 GHz vs 0.53 GHz Around 5x higher turbo clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs ARM A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
More threads 8 vs 1 7 more threads
More cores 4 vs 1 3 more cores; run more applications at once
Newer Mar, 2010 vs Sep, 2008 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of Apple APL 0278

Reasons to consider the
Apple APL 0278

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5620 vs APL 0278


Xeon E5620
APL 0278

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Xeon E5620  vs
APL 0278 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 0.41 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.66 GHz 0.53 GHz
Cores Quad core Single core

integrated graphics

Label N/A PowerVR MBX Lite
GPU clock speed N/A 133 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Channels Triple Channel Single Channel


Xeon E5620  vs
APL 0278 
Architecture x86-64 ARM
Threads 8 1
Manufacture process 32 nm 65 nm

power consumption

Typical power consumption 65W N/A
Intel Xeon E5620
Report a correction
Apple APL 0278
Report a correction


comments powered by Disqus