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!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 |
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 |
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 |
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!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 |
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 |
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 |
cpuboss.com