Intel Xeon E7220 vs Core2 Duo T9400 |
Released September, 2007
Intel Xeon E7220
- 2.93 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon E7220
 | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 32 | | Much more l2 cache 8 MB |
| | Higher clock speed 2.93 GHz | | Much more l2 cache per core 4 MB/core |
VS
Released July, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo T9400
- 2.53 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Core2 Duo T9400
| | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm | | Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W |
| | Supports trusted computing Yes | | Much lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 32 | vs | 1 | 31 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 6 MB | Around 35% more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher clock speed | 2.93 GHz | vs | 2.53 GHz | More than 15% higher clock speed | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 3 MB/core | Around 35% more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.93 GHz | vs | 1.8 GHz | Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.93 GHz | vs | 1.8 GHz | Around 65% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 28.44W | vs | 65W | 2.3x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | vs | 19.27 $/year | 2.3x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | vs | 70.08 $/year | 2.3x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2008 | vs | Sep, 2007 | Release date 10 months later | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Xeon E7220 vs Core2 Duo T9400
clock speed
L2 cache
overclocked clock speed (air)
overclocked clock speed (water)
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon E7220 | vs | Core2 Duo T9400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 2.53 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| 604 | |||
| 478 | |||
| P | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 80W | 35W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | 8.43 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | 30.66 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 65W | 28.44W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 1,066 MHz | |
details | Xeon E7220 | vs | Core2 Duo T9400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 4 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
| Transistor count | 582,000,000 | 410,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 32 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 11 | 9 | |
| Voltage range | 1 - 1.5V | 1.05 - 1.16V | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 1.8 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.93 GHz | 1.8 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.93 GHz | 1.8 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 | |
 Intel Xeon E7220  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo T9400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $209 | $331 | |
| P8700 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $211 | $331 | |
| P8600 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $331 | |
| 3220 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $30 | $331 | |
| 520M vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $211 | $331 | |
| P8400 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $134 | $331 | |
| T4400 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $331 | ||
| T9900 vs T9400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
