Winner
Intel Xeon E5620
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Xeon E5620 based on its performance, single-core performance, cost to run and value.
See full details Intel Xeon X3220 vs E5620 |
Released January, 2007
Intel Xeon X3220
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
5 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon X3220
 | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core |
VS
Released March, 2010
Intel Xeon E5620
- 2.4 GHz
- Quad core
5.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the E5620
| | Much better performance per watt 7.59 pt/W | | Much better performance per dollar 2.18 pt/$ |
| | Significantly newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | Supports trusted computing Yes |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X3220 vs E5620 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 | |
| 5.2 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Xeon E5620CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more l2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 8x more l2 cache per core | |||
| |||||||
| Much better performance per watt | 7.59 pt/W | vs | 1.21 pt/W | More than 6.2x better performance per watt | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 2.18 pt/$ | vs | 0.63 pt/$ | Around 3.5x better performance per dollar | |||
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 65W | vs | 85.31W | Around 25% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.75 GHz | vs | 3.52 GHz | More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.33 GHz | vs | 3.67 GHz | Around 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Newer | Mar, 2010 | vs | Jan, 2007 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 70.08 $/year | vs | 91.98 $/year | Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 19.27 $/year | vs | 25.29 $/year | Around 25% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X3220 vs E5620
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 X3220 | vs | E5620 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Quad core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| LGA 1366 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | Yes | |
| 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 | 105W | 80W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 25.29 $/year | 19.27 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 91.98 $/year | 70.08 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.21 pt/W | 7.59 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 85.31W | 65W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | QPI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 2 | |
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 2,930 MHz | |
details | Xeon X3220 | vs | E5620 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 8 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 32 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 2 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 18 | |
| Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 0.75 - 1.35V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 62.2°C | Unknown - 77.6°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 3.52 GHz | 3.75 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.67 GHz | 4.33 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.52 GHz | 3.75 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 | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Supports ECC | No | Yes | |
 Intel Xeon X3220  Report a correction |  Intel Xeon E5620 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $264 | $279 | |
| 3770K vs E5620 | ||
 | VS | |
| $410 | $279 | |
| E5-2620 vs E5620 | ||
 | VS | |
| $520 | $279 | |
| X5650 vs E5620 | ||
 | VS | |
| $1,443 | $279 | |
| X5670 vs E5620 | ||
 | VS | |
| $391 | $279 | |
| E5520 vs E5620 | ||
 | VS | |
| $240 | $279 | |
| 3770 vs E5620 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $202 | ||
| Q6600 vs X3220 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| 3217U vs 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 5200 vs 3470 | ||
