CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of X5470 vs 980X

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

Winner
Intel Core i7 980X 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 980X  based on its .

See full details

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
Front view of Intel Core i7 980X

Intel Core i7 980X

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Xeon X5470

Reasons to consider the
Intel Xeon X5470

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 12 MB vs 2 MB 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.33 MB/core 9x more l2 cache per core
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 28.91 $/year vs 50.68 $/year Around 45% lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year vs 148.92 $/year Around 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of Intel Core i7 980X

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 980X

Report a correction
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Newer manufacturing process 32 nms vs 45 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Better PassMark score 8,929 vs 5,093 More than 75% better PassMark score
More threads 12 vs 4 Three times as many threads
More cores 6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
Marginally newer Mar, 2010 vs Sep, 2008 Release date over 1 years later
Higher Maximum Operating Temperature 67.9 °C vs 63 °C Around 10% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Slightly better performance per dollar 1.14 pt/$ vs 0.55 pt/$ More than 2x better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X5470 vs Core i7 980X

Passmark

Xeon X5470
5,093
Core i7 980X
8,929
The GPU Score seems to be GPU limited at around 61,000 3DMarks since we didn't see much of a gain on the FPS in the game benchmarks.
Core i7 980X | by Legit Reviews (Mar, 2010)

Passmark (Single Core)

Xeon X5470
1,448
Core i7 980X
1,442

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Xeon X5470  vs
Core i7 980X 
Clock speed 3.33 GHz 3.33 GHz
Cores Quad core Hexa core
Socket type
LGA 771
LGA 1366
Is hyperthreaded No Yes

features

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

gpu

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 FSB QPI
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 3,200 MHz

details

Xeon X5470  vs
Core i7 980X 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 12
L2 cache 12 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.33 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nms 32 nms
Transistor count 820,000,000 1,170,000,000
Max CPUs 2 1
Clock multiplier 10 25
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.35V 0.8 - 1.38V
Operating temperature Unknown - 63°C Unknown - 67.9°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.54 GHz 4.53 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.54 GHz 4.69 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.54 GHz 4.53 GHz

power consumption

TDP 120W 130W
Annual home energy cost 28.91 $/year 50.68 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 105.12 $/year 148.92 $/year
Performance per watt 6.75 pt/W 5.51 pt/W
Typical power consumption 97.5W N/A
Intel Xeon X5470
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 980X
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus