0 Comments
| Intel Xeon L5420 vs Core2 Quad Q9550 |
Released March, 2008
Intel Xeon L5420
- 2.5 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon L5420
![]() | Much lower typical power consumption 40.63W | ![]() | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 |
![]() | Better performance per watt 2.75 pt/W | ![]() | Much lower annual home energy cost 12.04 $/year |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550
- 2.83 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Core2 Quad Q9550
![]() | Higher clock speed 2.83 GHz | ![]() | Supports trusted computing Yes |
![]() | Higher Maximum operating temperature 71.4 °C | ![]() | Better performance per dollar 0.5 pt/$ |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of L5420 vs Q9550 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?
VS
| ![]() | Intel Core2 Quad Q9550CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much lower typical power consumption | 40.63W | vs | 77.19W | More than 45% lower typical power consumption | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
Better performance per watt | 2.75 pt/W | vs | 1.51 pt/W | Around 85% better performance per watt | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 12.04 $/year | vs | 22.89 $/year | More than 45% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 43.8 $/year | vs | 83.22 $/year | More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Newer | Mar, 2008 | vs | Jan, 2008 | Release date 2 months later | |||
| |||||||
Higher clock speed | 2.83 GHz | vs | 2.5 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 71.4 °C | vs | 57 °C | More than 25% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Better performance per dollar | 0.5 pt/$ | vs | 0.33 pt/$ | Around 50% better performance per dollar | |||
Better geekbench 3 single core score | 1,604 | vs | 1,380 | More than 15% better geekbench 3 single core score | |||
Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 5,498 | vs | 4,968 | More than 10% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.99 GHz | vs | 3.67 GHz | Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.03 GHz | vs | 3.85 GHz | Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L5420 vs Core2 Quad Q9550
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon L5420
4,968
Core2 Quad Q9550
5,498
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon L5420
1,380
Core2 Quad Q9550
1,604
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon L5420
107,200 MB/s
Core2 Quad Q9550
121,500 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon L5420
4,473
Core2 Quad Q9550
5,132
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon L5420
5,037
Core2 Quad Q9550
5,686
GeekBench
Xeon L5420
5,037
Core2 Quad Q9550
7,065
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Xeon L5420
3,506
Core2 Quad Q9550
4,002
PassMark (Single Core)
Xeon L5420
1,043
Core2 Quad Q9550
1,199
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon L5420 | vs | Core2 Quad Q9550 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.5 GHz | 2.83 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 771 | |||
LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
MMX | |||
SSE4 | |||
SSE3 | |||
EM64T | |||
SSE | |||
SSE4.1 | |||
Supplemental SSE3 | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 50W | 95W | |
Annual home energy cost | 12.04 $/year | 22.89 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 43.8 $/year | 83.22 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 2.75 pt/W | 1.51 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 40.63W | 77.19W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,333 MHz |
details | Xeon L5420 | vs | Core2 Quad Q9550 |
---|---|---|---|
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 | 2 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 7 | 8 | |
Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.35V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 57°C | Unknown - 71.4°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3.67 GHz | 3.99 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.85 GHz | 4.03 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.67 GHz | 3.99 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 L5420 ![]() | Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$287 | $339 | |
Q9550 vs Q9650 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$287 | ||
Q9550 vs Q6600 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$287 | $125 | |
Q9550 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$287 | $179 | |
Q9550 vs E8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$287 | $220 | |
Q9550 vs 2500K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$287 | $735 | |
Q9550 vs E5440 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$287 | $200 | |
Q9550 vs Q9400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
847 vs 3217U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||