CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of L3360 vs Q9650 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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon L3360

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon L3360

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 77.19W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Higher Maximum operating temperature 76.25 °C vs 71.4 °C More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better performance per watt 2.25 pt/W vs 1.47 pt/W Around 55% better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Feb, 2009 vs Aug, 2008 Release date 6 months later
Front view of Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650

Report a correction
Slightly higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.83 GHz More than 5% higher clock speed
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.15 GHz vs 2.83 GHz More than 45% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.25 GHz vs 2.83 GHz Around 50% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L3360 vs Core2 Quad Q9650

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon L3360  vs
Core2 Quad Q9650 
Clock speed 2.83 GHz 3 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 775

features

Has a NX bit Yes 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 65W 95W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 22.89 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 83.22 $/year
Performance per watt 2.25 pt/W 1.47 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 77.19W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 1,333 MHz

details

Xeon L3360  vs
Core2 Quad Q9650 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 12 MB 12 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 3 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 45 nm
Transistor count 820,000,000 820,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 8 9
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 76.25°C Unknown - 71.4°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 2.83 GHz 4.15 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.83 GHz 4.25 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.83 GHz 4.15 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 L3360
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Quad Q9650
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus