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 W3670

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon W3670

Report a correction
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
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
Much better performance per dollar 1.31 pt/$ vs 0.69 pt/$ More than 90% better performance per dollar
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Significantly better performance per watt 5.98 pt/W vs 1.61 pt/W Around 3.8x better performance per watt
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
More threads 12 vs 8 4 more threads
Better PassMark score 8,289 vs 5,871 More than 40% better PassMark score
Better geekbench 3 single core score 2,407 vs 2,139 Around 15% better geekbench 3 single core score
More l2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core Around 35% more l2 cache per core
Newer Aug, 2010 vs Oct, 2009 Release date 10 months later
Front view of Intel Core i7 960

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 960

Report a correction
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.28 GHz vs 3.84 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon W3670 vs Core i7 960

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon W3670
13,282
Core i7 960
8,542

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon W3670
2,407
Core i7 960
2,139

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon W3670
1,670,000 MB/s
Core i7 960
142,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon W3670
13,313
Core i7 960
8,363

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Xeon W3670
14,709
Core i7 960
9,114

GeekBench

Xeon W3670
14,709
Core i7 960
10,939

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Xeon W3670
8,289
Core i7 960
5,871

PassMark (Single Core)

Xeon W3670
1,399
Core i7 960
1,388

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon W3670  vs
Core i7 960 
Clock speed 3.2 GHz 3.2 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.46 GHz 3.46 GHz
Cores Hexa core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 1366

features

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

power consumption

TDP 130W 130W
Annual home energy cost 31.32 $/year 31.32 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 113.88 $/year 113.88 $/year
Performance per watt 5.98 pt/W 1.61 pt/W
Typical power consumption 105.63W 105.63W

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1066
DDR3-800
DDR3
Channels Triple Channel Triple Channel
Supports ECC Yes No
Maximum bandwidth 25,599.99 MB/s 25,599.99 MB/s
Maximum memory size 24,576 MB 24,576 MB

details

Xeon W3670  vs
Core i7 960 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 12 8
L2 cache 2 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.33 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 12 MB 8 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 2 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 24 24
Voltage range 0.8 - 1.38V 0.8 - 1.38V
Operating temperature Unknown - 67.9°C Unknown - 67.9°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.51 GHz 4.35 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.84 GHz 4.28 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.51 GHz 4.35 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

bus

Architecture QPI QPI
Number of links 1 1
Data rate 19,200 MB/s 19,200 MB/s
Transfer rate 4,800 MT/s 4,800 MT/s
Clock speed 2,400 MHz 2,400 MHz
Intel Xeon W3670
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 960
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus