CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5620 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?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Intel Xeon E5620

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Xeon E5620

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5620

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5620

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 1,280,000 MB/s vs 143,700 MB/s Around 9x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Much lower typical power consumption 65W vs 135.63W 2.1x lower typical power consumption
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per dollar 2.18 pt/$ vs 0.61 pt/$ More than 3.5x better performance per dollar
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 14,086 vs 7,014 More than 2x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
More l3 cache 12 MB vs 8 MB 50% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per watt 7.59 pt/W vs 1.21 pt/W More than 6.2x better performance per watt
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Significantly more l3 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year vs 48.38 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
Higher Maximum operating temperature 77.6 °C vs 67.9 °C Around 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year vs 134.55 $/year Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Mar, 2010 vs Oct, 2008 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of Intel Core i7 920

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 920

Report a correction
Higher clock speed 2.66 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Higher turbo clock speed 2.93 GHz vs 2.66 GHz More than 10% higher turbo clock speed
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz vs 3.75 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5620 vs Core i7 920

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
14,086
Core i7 920
7,014

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
1,898
Core i7 920
1,959

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
1,280,000 MB/s
Core i7 920
143,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
8,737
Core i7 920
7,125

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5620
11,417
Core i7 920
7,791

GeekBench

Xeon E5620
11,417
Core i7 920
9,242

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5620
4,873
Core i7 920
4,958

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon E5620
1,059
Core i7 920
1,164

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E5620  vs
Core i7 920 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 2.66 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.66 GHz 2.93 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 1366

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 130W
Annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year 48.38 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year 134.55 $/year
Performance per watt 7.59 pt/W 1.21 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W 135.63W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
DDR3
Channels Triple Channel Triple Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 25,599.99 MB/s 25,599.99 MB/s

details

Xeon E5620  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 12 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 3 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 18 20
Voltage range 0.75 - 1.35V 0.8 - 1.38V
Operating temperature Unknown - 77.6°C Unknown - 67.9°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 12 491
Overclocked clock speed 3.75 GHz 4.22 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.33 GHz 4.24 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.75 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 E5620
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 920
Report a correction

Comments

Showing 8 comments.
After replacing my i7-920 with the Xeon E5620, my performance in geekbench 4 is identical in every way, except for AES which went from 129 on the i7 to 1368 on the E5620, single core, and from 571 to 5642, multicore. However, power consumption should be only half that of the i7 due to the newer 32nm manufacturing process. Considering the price of 20$ that i paid for the E5620, i should be in the money by 2018.
You are right. The multicore geekbench 3 test is fake! :-)
Look here: http://browser.primatelabs.com/geekbench3/search?dir=asc&page=68&q=e5620&sort=multicore_score Page 64 (!) GB3 results. All results above 8500 points has 2 CPU. Dell Inc. Precision WorkStation T7500 Intel Xeon E5620 2400 MHz (4 cores) Windows 32-bit 1856 7422 (1 CPU in details) and then 2 CPUs, and mostly all entires bellow until those results of 14k points Jan 31, 2016 Mac Pro (Mid 2010) Intel Xeon E5620 2533 MHz (4 cores)
Did just that, and found a Xeon E5620 test on the same motherboard as mine, in geekbench 4. It seems that they are almost identical, except when it comes to AES. This makes sense, as the i7 does not support AES new instructions (AES-NI). So i guess unzipping will be faster now ^^
In Geekbench 4 i got a single core score of 2328 and multicore of 7674 with my i7-920. No overclocking involved.
Because it's the result of 2 CPU configuration. Look into the Geekbench database, or just compare with other results here.
How do you know that the first result is fake? I just bought a E5620 to replace my i7 920, and im looking forward to seeing the results :-)
Interesting results, knowing that turbo of E5620 is only 2.66... But it's 32nm Xeon with better 64 bit computing. It's very promising. First result of Geekbench is fake for sure, because there were two CPU's used, but results below may be correct. And it's really interesting. In games using HT well, its performance of 2500/6100/G4600. But it's only 2,4/2.66GHz, although 4/8. Definitely interesting
comments powered by Disqus