Xeon E5620 vs i7-965

VS

Aggregate performance score

Core i7-965
2008
4 cores / 8 threads, 130 Watt
2.24

Xeon E5620 outperforms Core i7-965 by a small 5% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking18421809
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation2.450.08
Market segmentDesktop processorServer
Power efficiency1.572.68
Architecture codenameBloomfield (2008−2010)Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
Release dateNovember 2008 (16 years ago)16 March 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$1,509$35

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

i7-965 has 2963% better value for money than Xeon E5620.

Detailed specifications

Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620 basic parameters such as number of cores, number of threads, base frequency and turbo boost clock, lithography, cache size and multiplier lock state. These parameters indirectly say of CPU speed, though for more precise assessment you have to consider their test results.

Physical cores4 (Quad-Core)4 (Quad-Core)
Threads88
Base clock speed3.2 GHz2.4 GHz
Boost clock speed3.46 GHz2.66 GHz
Bus rate6.4 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache8 MB (shared)12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography45 nm32 nm
Die size263 mm2239 mm2
Maximum core temperature68 °C78 °C
Number of transistors731 million1,170 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplier+-

Compatibility

Information on Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620 compatibility with other computer components: motherboard (look for socket type), power supply unit (look for power consumption) etc. Useful when planning a future computer configuration or upgrading an existing one. Note that power consumption of some processors can well exceed their nominal TDP, even without overclocking. Some can even double their declared thermals given that the motherboard allows to tune the CPU power parameters.

Number of CPUs in a configuration12
SocketFCLGA1366FCLGA1366,LGA1366
Power consumption (TDP)130 Watt80 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2Intel® SSE4.2
AES-NI-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.01.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Demand Based Switching-+
PAE36 Bit40 Bit

Security technologies

Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620 are enumerated here.

VT-dno data+
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size24 GB288 GB
Max memory channels33
Maximum memory bandwidth25.6 GB/s25.6 GB/s
ECC memory support-+

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620.

PCIe versionno data2.0

Synthetic benchmark performance

Various benchmark results of the processors in comparison. Overall score is measured in points in 0-100 range, higher is better.


Combined synthetic benchmark score

This is our combined benchmark performance rating. We are regularly improving our combining algorithms, but if you find some perceived inconsistencies, feel free to speak up in comments section, we usually fix problems quickly.

i7-965 2.24
Xeon E5620 2.35
+4.9%

Passmark

Passmark CPU Mark is a widespread benchmark, consisting of 8 different types of workload, including integer and floating point math, extended instructions, compression, encryption and physics calculation. There is also one separate single-threaded scenario measuring single-core performance.

i7-965 3424
Xeon E5620 3590
+4.8%

GeekBench 5 Single-Core

GeekBench 5 Single-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses only a single CPU core.

i7-965 490
+33.5%
Xeon E5620 367

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core

GeekBench 5 Multi-Core is a cross-platform application developed in the form of CPU tests that independently recreate certain real-world tasks with which to accurately measure performance. This version uses all available CPU cores.

i7-965 1708
+16.3%
Xeon E5620 1468

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 2.24 2.35
Chip lithography 45 nm 32 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 130 Watt 80 Watt

Xeon E5620 has a 4.9% higher aggregate performance score, a 40.6% more advanced lithography process, and 62.5% lower power consumption.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620.

Note that Core i7-965 is a desktop processor while Xeon E5620 is a server/workstation one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Core i7-965 and Xeon E5620, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.

Vote for your favorite

Do you think we are right or mistaken in our choice? Vote by clicking "Like" button near your favorite CPU.


Intel Core i7-965
Core i7-965
Intel Xeon E5620
Xeon E5620

Similar processor comparisons

We picked several similar comparisons of processors in the same market segment and performance relatively close to those reviewed on this page.

Community ratings

Here you can see how users rate the processors, as well as rate them yourself.


3.2 24 votes

Rate Core i7-965 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3.5 109 votes

Rate Xeon E5620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Core i7-965 or Xeon E5620, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.