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

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 1 GHz Around 2.5x higher clock speed
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 14,086 vs 308 Around 45.8x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Much better performance per dollar 2.18 pt/$ vs 0.3 pt/$ More than 7.2x 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
More l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better geekbench 3 single core score 1,898 vs 232 Around 8.2x better geekbench 3 single core score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.75 GHz vs 1 GHz More than 3.8x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Much better performance per watt 7.59 pt/W vs 2.4 pt/W Around 3.2x better performance per watt
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
More cores 4 vs 1 3 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 8 vs 2 6 more threads
Supports more RAM 294,912 MB vs 2,048 MB Supports 144x more RAM
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.33 GHz vs 1 GHz More than 4.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Atom E640

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom E640

Report a correction
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much lower typical power consumption 2.92W vs 65W 22.2x lower typical power consumption
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 0.87 $/year vs 19.27 $/year 22.2x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 3.15 $/year vs 70.08 $/year 22.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Sep, 2010 vs Mar, 2010 Release date 6 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5620 vs Atom E640

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
14,086
Atom E640
308

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
1,898
Atom E640
232

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
1,280,000 MB/s
Atom E640
15.6 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5620  vs
Atom E640 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 1 GHz
Cores Quad core Single core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
Supplemental SSE3
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 80W 3.6W
Annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year 0.87 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year 3.15 $/year
Performance per watt 7.59 pt/W 2.4 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W 2.92W

bus

Architecture QPI FSB
Number of links 2 1
Clock speed 2,930 MHz 2,500 MHz

details

Xeon E5620  vs
Atom E640 
Architecture x86-64 x86
Threads 8 2
L2 cache 1 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 18 10
Voltage range 0.75 - 1.35V 0.75 - 0.9V

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.75 GHz 1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.33 GHz 1 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.75 GHz 1 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Integrated
GPU clock speed N/A 320 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1066
DDR3
DDR3-800
DDR2-800
DDR2
Channels Triple Channel Single Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 25,599.99 MB/s 6,400 MB/s
Maximum memory size 294,912 MB 2,048 MB
Intel Xeon E5620
Report a correction
Intel Atom E640
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus