Intel Xeon L5420 vs Core2 Quad Q9550 |
Released March, 2008
Intel Xeon L5420
- 2.5 GHz
- Quad core
4.6 Out of 10
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 $/year |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Quad Q9550
- 2.83 GHz
- Quad core
4.6 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core2 Quad Q9550
| | Higher clock speed 2.83 GHz | | Supports trusted computing Yes |
| | Higher Maximum operating temperature 71.4 °C | | Better performance per dollar 0.5 pt/$ |
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) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon L5420 vs Core2 Quad Q9550
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
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  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Quad Q9550 Report a correction |
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 | ||
