Ноутбук Ультрабук  Нетбук   Моноблок Настольный ПК Планшет Смартфон
Главная » Статьи » X5670 vs i7 6700k

X5670 vs i7 6700k


Intel Xeon X5670 vs Core i7 6700K

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score Significantly more l2 cache More l3 cache Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration Much better performance per watt Supports trusted computing Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature More cores More threads Supports more RAM More l2 cache per core Significantly higher clock speed Significantly higher turbo clock speed Much newer manufacturing process Has a built-in GPU Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score Newer Significantly better performance per dollar Better PassMark score Better overclocked clock speed (Air) Better overclocked clock speed (Water)
5,794 vs 80.5 Around 72x better 3DMark06 CPU score
2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
12 MB vs 8 MB 50% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
8.54 pt/W vs 3.47 pt/W Around 2.5x better performance per watt
Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
81.3 °C vs 64 °C More than 25% higher Maximum operating temperature
6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
12 vs 8 4 more threads
294,912 MB vs 65,536 MB Supports 4.5x more RAM
0.33 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core Around 35% more l2 cache per core
4 GHz vs 2.93 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
4.2 GHz vs 3.33 GHz More than 25% higher turbo clock speed
14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
2,349 vs 1,347 Around 75% better PassMark (Single core) score
Jul, 2015 vs Mar, 2010 Release date over 5 years later
0.9 pt/$ vs 0.56 pt/$ More than 60% better performance per dollar
11,109 vs 8,013 Around 40% better PassMark score
4.61 GHz vs 4.29 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
4.77 GHz vs 4.5 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Intel Xeon X5670

Report a correction

Intel Core i7 6700K

Report a correction

VS VS

cpuboss.com

Intel Xeon X5670 vs Core i7 6700

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

CPUBoss Winner
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score Significantly more l2 cache More l3 cache Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration Significantly better performance per watt More cores More threads Supports more RAM Higher Maximum operating temperature Better overclocked clock speed (Air) More l2 cache per core Better overclocked clock speed (Water) Much newer manufacturing process Higher turbo clock speed Has a built-in GPU Higher clock speed Significantly lower typical power consumption Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score Newer Much better performance per dollar Better PassMark score Significantly lower annual home energy cost Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost
5,794 vs 76 Around 76.2x better 3DMark06 CPU score
2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
12 MB vs 8 MB 50% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
8.54 pt/W vs 4.77 pt/W Around 80% better performance per watt
6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
12 vs 8 4 more threads
294,912 MB vs 65,536 MB Supports 4.5x more RAM
81.3 °C vs 71 °C Around 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
4.29 GHz vs 3.98 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
0.33 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core Around 35% more l2 cache per core
4.5 GHz vs 4.18 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
14 nm vs 32 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
4 GHz vs 3.33 GHz More than 20% higher turbo clock speed
Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
3.4 GHz vs 2.93 GHz More than 15% higher clock speed
52.81W vs 77.19W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
2,159 vs 1,347 More than 60% better PassMark (Single core) score
Jul, 2015 vs Mar, 2010 Release date over 5 years later
1.02 pt/$ vs 0.56 pt/$ More than 80% better performance per dollar
10,038 vs 8,013 More than 25% better PassMark score
15.66 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
56.94 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost

Intel Xeon X5670

Report a correction

Intel Core i7 6700

Report a correction

VS VS

cpuboss.com

Intel Xeon X5670 vs Core i7 3930K

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
Much lower typical power consumption Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration Supports trusted computing Much lower annual home energy cost Significantly better performance per watt Higher Maximum operating temperature Much lower annual commercial energy cost Supports more RAM Much better performance per dollar Higher turbo clock speed Higher clock speed Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score Better PassMark score Newer Better overclocked clock speed (Air) Slightly better overclocked clock speed (Water)
77.19W vs 172.6W 2.2x lower typical power consumption
2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
22.89 $/year vs 56.96 $/year 2.5x lower annual home energy cost
8.54 pt/W vs 5.5 pt/W More than 55% better performance per watt
81.3 °C vs 66.8 °C More than 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
83.22 $/year vs 177.83 $/year 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost
294,912 MB vs 65,771.52 MB Supports around 4.5x more RAM
2.45 pt/$ vs 0.56 pt/$ More than 4.2x better performance per dollar
3.8 GHz vs 3.33 GHz Around 15% higher turbo clock speed
3.2 GHz vs 2.93 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
1,949 vs 1,347 Around 45% better PassMark (Single core) score
12,084 vs 8,013 More than 50% better PassMark score
Nov, 2011 vs Mar, 2010 Release date over 1 years later
4.67 GHz vs 4.29 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
4.67 GHz vs 4.5 GHz Around 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Intel Xeon X5670

Report a correction

Intel Core i7 3930K

Report a correction

VS VS

cpuboss.com

Intel Xeon X5670 vs Core i7 960

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!

CPUBoss Winner
Much better 3DMark06 CPU score Significantly more l2 cache Much newer manufacturing process Significantly lower typical power consumption More l3 cache Much better performance per watt Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration Supports trusted computing More cores More threads Higher Maximum operating temperature Supports more RAM Better PassMark score Better geekbench 3 single core score Significantly lower annual home energy cost Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost More l2 cache per core Newer Better overclocked clock speed (Water) Higher clock speed Better performance per dollar
5,794 vs 5,360 Around 10% better 3DMark06 CPU score
2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
32 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
77.19W vs 105.63W More than 25% lower typical power consumption
12 MB vs 8 MB 50% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
8.55 pt/W vs 1.61 pt/W More than 5.2x better performance per watt
2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
6 vs 4 2 more cores; run more applications at once
12 vs 8 4 more threads
81.3 °C vs 67.9 °C Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
294,912 MB vs 24,576 MB Supports 12x more RAM
8,013 vs 5,871 More than 35% better PassMark score
2,341 vs 2,139 Around 10% better geekbench 3 single core score
22.89 $/year vs 31.32 $/year More than 25% lower annual home energy cost
83.22 $/year vs 113.88 $/year More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
0.33 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core Around 35% more l2 cache per core
Mar, 2010 vs Oct, 2009 Release date 4 months later
4.5 GHz vs 4.28 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
3.2 GHz vs 2.93 GHz Around 10% higher clock speed
0.69 pt/$ vs 0.56 pt/$ More than 20% better performance per dollar

Intel Xeon X5670

Report a correction

Intel Core i7 960

Report a correction

VS VS

cpuboss.com

Смотрите также