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 E7450

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon E7450

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 9 MB vs 1 MB 9x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 32 vs 1 31 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration
Much better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 18,532.5 vs 12,524 Around 50% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score
Much more l2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 6x more l2 cache per core
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
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Front view of Intel Core i7 3770

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 3770

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 3.4 GHz vs 2.4 GHz More than 40% higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per dollar 2.33 pt/$ vs 0.09 pt/$ Around 26.5x better performance per dollar
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much better geekbench 3 single core score 3,236 vs 1,070.5 More than 3x better geekbench 3 single core score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.03 GHz vs 2.59 GHz More than 55% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better performance per watt 7.25 pt/W vs 2.33 pt/W More than 3x better performance per watt
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Lower typical power consumption 62.56W vs 73.13W Around 15% lower typical power consumption
Newer Apr, 2012 vs Sep, 2008 Release date over 3 years later
More threads 8 vs 6 2 more threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.32 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 80% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Lower annual home energy cost 18.55 $/year vs 21.68 $/year Around 15% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 67.45 $/year vs 78.84 $/year Around 15% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon E7450 vs Core i7 3770

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E7450
18,532.5
Core i7 3770
12,524

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E7450
1,070.5
Core i7 3770
3,236

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon E7450
86.3 MB/s
Core i7 3770
2,660,000 MB/s

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon E7450  vs
Core i7 3770 
Clock speed 2.4 GHz 3.4 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Socket type
604
LGA 1155

features

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

power consumption

TDP 90W 77W
Annual home energy cost 21.68 $/year 18.55 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 78.84 $/year 67.45 $/year
Performance per watt 2.33 pt/W 7.25 pt/W
Typical power consumption 73.13W 62.56W

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1

details

Xeon E7450  vs
Core i7 3770 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 6 8
L2 cache 9 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 12 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 22 nm
Transistor count 1,900,000,000 1,300,000,000
Max CPUs 32 1
Clock multiplier 9 34
Operating temperature Unknown - 68°C Unknown - 67.4°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.59 GHz 4.03 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.4 GHz 4.32 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.59 GHz 4.03 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 4000
Latest DirectX N/A 11.x
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,150 MHz
3DMark06 N/A 5,339.9
Intel Xeon E7450
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 3770
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus