Xeon X5650 vs E5-2620

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon E5-2620
2012
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.33
Xeon X5650
2010
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.60
+8.1%

Xeon X5650 outperforms Xeon E5-2620 by a small 8% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking15861511
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.730.25
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency3.323.59
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EP (2012)Westmere-EP (2010−2011)
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)16 March 2010 (14 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$36$53

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon E5-2620 has 592% better value for money than Xeon X5650.

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650 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 cores6 (Hexa-Core)6 (Hexa-Core)
Threads1212
Base clock speed2 GHz2.66 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz3.06 GHz
Bus rate7.2 GT/sno data
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache15360 KB (shared)12 MB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size435 mm2239 mm2
Maximum core temperature77 °C81 °C
Number of transistors2,270 million1,170 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650 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 configuration22
SocketFCLGA2011FCLGA1366,LGA1366
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXIntel® SSE4.2
AES-NI++
AVX+-
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.01.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring+-
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching++
PAEno data40 Bit

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650 are enumerated here.

VT-d++
VT-x++
EPT++

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size384 GB288 GB
Max memory channels43
Maximum memory bandwidth42.6 GB/s32 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650.

PCIe version3.02.0
PCI Express lanes40no data

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.

Xeon E5-2620 3.33
Xeon X5650 3.60
+8.1%

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.

Xeon E5-2620 5293
Xeon X5650 5719
+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.

Xeon E5-2620 405
Xeon X5650 447
+10.4%

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.

Xeon E5-2620 1963
Xeon X5650 2231
+13.7%

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 3.33 3.60
Recency 6 March 2012 16 March 2010

Xeon E5-2620 has an age advantage of 1 year.

Xeon X5650, on the other hand, has a 8.1% higher aggregate performance score.

Given the minimal performance differences, no clear winner can be declared between Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2620 and Xeon X5650, 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 Xeon E5-2620
Xeon E5-2620
Intel Xeon X5650
Xeon X5650

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.


4 517 votes

Rate Xeon E5-2620 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4.3 456 votes

Rate Xeon X5650 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon E5-2620 or Xeon X5650, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.