CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E5649 vs 920 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores
Xeon E5649
6.4
Core i7 920
5.9
Core i7 6700K
7.4
PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance
Xeon E5649
7.7
Core i7 920
7.8
Core i7 6700K
10.0
PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics
Xeon E5649
n.d.
Core i7 920
n.d.
Core i7 6700K
n.d.
Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing
Xeon E5649
0.0
Core i7 920
0.0
Core i7 6700K
10.0
CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?
Xeon E5649
5.1
Core i7 920
5.0
Core i7 6700K
5.4
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?
Xeon E5649
n.d.
Core i7 920
n.d.
Core i7 6700K
n.d.
Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more
4.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets
Xeon E5649
4.8
Core i7 920
4.7
Core i7 6700K
9.2

Winner
Intel Xeon E5649 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5649  based on its performance, 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 E5649

Front view of Intel Xeon E5649
Front view of Intel Core i7 920

Intel Core i7 920

Join the discussion

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon E5649

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E5649

Report a correction
Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 1,240,000 MB/s vs 143,700 MB/s Around 8.8x better geekbench 3 AES single core score
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
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
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 7.4 pt/W vs 1.21 pt/W Around 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
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Much lower annual home energy cost 19.27 $/year vs 48.38 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
More threads 12 vs 8 4 more threads
Better PassMark score 7,051 vs 4,958 More than 40% better PassMark score
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 70.08 $/year vs 134.55 $/year Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost
Better performance per dollar 0.76 pt/$ vs 0.61 pt/$ More than 25% better performance per dollar
Newer Feb, 2011 vs Oct, 2008 Release date over 2 years later
Higher Maximum operating temperature 76.2 °C vs 67.9 °C More than 10% higher Maximum operating temperature
More l2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core Around 35% more l2 cache per core
Front view of Intel Core i7 920

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 920

Report a correction
Slightly higher clock speed 2.66 GHz vs 2.53 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.24 GHz vs 4.11 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E5649 vs Core i7 920

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5649
10,428
Core i7 920
7,014

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5649
1,902
Core i7 920
1,959

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5649
1,240,000 MB/s
Core i7 920
143,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E5649
11,227
Core i7 920
7,125

GeekBench

Xeon E5649
11,227
Core i7 920
9,242

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon E5649
7,051
Core i7 920
4,958

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon E5649
1,162
Core i7 920
1,164

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

 Xeon E5649  vs
Core i7 920 
Clock speed 2.53 GHz 2.66 GHz
Turbo clock speed 2.93 GHz 2.93 GHz
Cores Hexa 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 7.4 pt/W 1.21 pt/W
Typical power consumption 65W 135.63W

memory controller
Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
DDR3
Channels Triple Channel Triple Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 31,999.98 MB/s 25,599.99 MB/s

details

 Xeon E5649  vs
Core i7 920 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 8
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 12 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 19 20
Voltage range 0.75 - 1.35V 0.8 - 1.38V
Operating temperature Unknown - 76.2°C Unknown - 67.9°C

overclocking
Overclock popularity 0 491
Overclocked clock speed 4.25 GHz 4.22 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.11 GHz 4.24 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.25 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 E5649
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 920
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus

features

information

  • terms and privacy
  • about
  • blog

on the web

CPUBoss