0 Comments
| Intel Xeon X5670 vs Core i7 975 |
Released March, 2010
Intel Xeon X5670
- 2.93 GHz
- Hexa core
Reasons to buy the Intel Xeon X5670
![]() | Much lower typical power consumption 77.19W | ![]() | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB |
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | ![]() | More l3 cache 12 MB |
VS
Released June, 2009
Intel Core i7 975
- 3.33 GHz
- Quad core
- Unlocked
Reasons to buy the Core i7 975
![]() | Much better 3DMark06 CPU score 5,836.5 | ![]() | Higher clock speed 3.33 GHz |
![]() | Higher turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz | ![]() | Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.46 GHz |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Xeon X5670CPUBoss Winner | ![]() | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much lower typical power consumption | 77.19W | vs | 212W | 2.7x lower typical power consumption | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
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 watt | 8.54 pt/W | vs | 0.93 pt/W | Around 9.2x better performance per watt | |||
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | vs | 82.69 $/year | 3.6x lower annual home energy cost | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
Significantly better performance per dollar | 0.56 pt/$ | vs | 0.21 pt/$ | Around 2.8x better performance per dollar | |||
Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | vs | 211.12 $/year | 2.5x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
More cores | 6 | vs | 4 | 2 more cores; run more applications at once | |||
More threads | 12 | vs | 8 | 4 more threads | |||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 81.3 °C | vs | 67.9 °C | Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Supports more RAM | 294,912 MB | vs | 24,000 MB | Supports more than 12.2x more RAM | |||
Better PassMark score | 8,013 | vs | 6,173 | Around 30% better PassMark score | |||
More l2 cache per core | 0.33 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | Around 35% more l2 cache per core | |||
Newer | Mar, 2010 | vs | Jun, 2009 | Release date 9 months later | |||
| |||||||
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score | 5,836.5 | vs | 5,794 | Almost the same | |||
Higher clock speed | 3.33 GHz | vs | 2.93 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
Higher turbo clock speed | 3.6 GHz | vs | 3.33 GHz | Around 10% higher turbo clock speed | |||
Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.46 GHz | vs | 4.29 GHz | Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Xeon X5670 vs Core i7 975
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X5670
24,364
Core i7 975
9,214
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X5670
2,341
Core i7 975
2,324
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X5670
1,590,000 MB/s
Core i7 975
152,250 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X5670
13,847
Core i7 975
9,229
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Xeon X5670
14,780
Core i7 975
9,894
GeekBench
Xeon X5670
14,780
Core i7 975
11,512
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Xeon X5670
8,013
Core i7 975
6,173
PassMark (Single Core)
Xeon X5670
1,347
Core i7 975
1,461
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Xeon X5670 | vs | Core i7 975 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.93 GHz | 3.33 GHz | |
Turbo clock speed | 3.33 GHz | 3.6 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 | 95W | 130W | |
Annual home energy cost | 22.89 $/year | 82.69 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 83.22 $/year | 211.12 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 8.54 pt/W | 0.93 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 77.19W | 212W | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Memory type | |||
DDR3-1333 | |||
DDR3-1066 | |||
DDR3-800 | |||
DDR3 | |||
Channels | Triple Channel | Triple Channel | |
Supports ECC | Yes | No | |
Maximum bandwidth | 31,999.98 MB/s | 25,599.99 MB/s | |
Maximum memory size | 294,912 MB | 24,000 MB |
details | Xeon X5670 | vs | Core i7 975 |
---|---|---|---|
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 | 2 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 22 | 25 | |
Voltage range | 0.75 - 1.35V | 0.8 - 1.38V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 81.3°C | 5 - 67.9°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclock popularity | 8 | 8 | |
Overclocked clock speed | 4.29 GHz | 4.46 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.5 GHz | 4.45 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.29 GHz | 4.46 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 | 2 | 1 | |
Data rate | 51,200 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s | |
Transfer rate | 6,400 MT/s | 6,400 MT/s | |
Clock speed | 3,200 MHz | 3,200 MHz |
Intel Xeon X5670 ![]() | Intel Core i7 975 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$339 | $1,443 | |
X3470 vs X5670 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$777 | $1,443 | |
E5540 vs X5670 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | $1,443 | |
6700K vs X5670 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,417 | $1,443 | |
X5675 vs X5670 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$520 | $1,443 | |
X5650 vs X5670 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$1,670 | $1,443 | |
X5690 vs X5670 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$240 | $1,443 | |
3770 vs X5670 | ||
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 | ![]() |
$230 | $248 | |
9590 vs 4770K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | $250 | |
6700K vs 6600K | ||