Winner
Intel Core i7 4770
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 4770 based on its performance, single-core performance and value.
See full details Intel Xeon W3550 vs Core i7 4770 |
VS
Released June, 2013
Intel Core i7 4770
- 3.4 GHz
- Quad core
8.8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i7 4770
 | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm | | Much better performance per dollar 3.12 pt/$ |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Higher turbo clock speed 3.9 GHz |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of W3550 vs 4770 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 | |
| 8.8 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the Xeon W3550 vs the Core i7 4770. | |||||||
| |||||||
| 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 | 3.12 pt/$ | vs | 0.67 pt/$ | Around 4.8x better performance per dollar | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Higher turbo clock speed | 3.9 GHz | vs | 3.33 GHz | More than 15% higher turbo clock speed | |||
| Higher clock speed | 3.4 GHz | vs | 3.06 GHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 68.25W | vs | 105.63W | More than 35% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 10.41 pt/W | vs | 1.57 pt/W | More than 6.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 2,029 | vs | 1,357 | Around 50% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Better PassMark score | 9,523 | vs | 5,730 | More than 65% better PassMark score | |||
| Newer | Jun, 2013 | vs | Aug, 2009 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 20.24 $/year | vs | 31.32 $/year | More than 35% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 73.58 $/year | vs | 113.88 $/year | More than 35% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 72.72 °C | vs | 67.9 °C | More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.85 GHz | vs | 3.65 GHz | More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.01 GHz | vs | 3.07 GHz | More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon W3550 vs Core i7 4770
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 W3550 | vs | Core i7 4770 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3.06 GHz | 3.4 GHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 3.9 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| F16C | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| FMA3 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| AVX 2.0 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 130W | 84W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 31.32 $/year | 20.24 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 113.88 $/year | 73.58 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.57 pt/W | 10.41 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 105.63W | 68.25W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | DMI 2.0 | |
| Number of links | 1 | 0 | |
| Transfer rate | 4,800 MT/s | 5,000 MT/s | |
details | Xeon W3550 | vs | Core i7 4770 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 8 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 8 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 67.9°C | Unknown - 72.72°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.65 GHz | 3.85 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.07 GHz | 4.01 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.65 GHz | 3.85 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 4600 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 3 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 350 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,200 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3-1600 | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3-1333 | |||
| DDR3-1066 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| DDR3-800 | |||
| Channels | Triple Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | Yes | No | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,599.99 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 24,576 MB | 32,768 MB | |
 Intel Xeon W3550  Report a correction |  Intel Core i7 4770 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $280 | $240 | |
| 4770 vs 3770 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $280 | $305 | |
| 4770 vs 4790 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $280 | $248 | |
| 4770 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $280 | $401 | |
| 4770 vs 6500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $280 | $160 | |
| 4770 vs 4570 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $280 | $192 | |
| 4770 vs 4670K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $280 | $305 | |
| 4770 vs 6700 | ||
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 |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
