Xeon E5-2620 vs X5675

VS

Aggregate performance score

Xeon X5675
2011
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
4.03
+21%
Xeon E5-2620
2012
6 cores / 12 threads, 95 Watt
3.33

Xeon X5675 outperforms Xeon E5-2620 by a significant 21% based on our aggregate benchmark results.

Primary details

Comparing Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in the ranking14211586
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation4.081.73
Market segmentServerServer
Power efficiency4.013.32
Architecture codenameWestmere-EP (2010−2011)Sandy Bridge-EP (2012)
Release date14 February 2011 (13 years ago)6 March 2012 (12 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$162$36

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

Xeon X5675 has 136% better value for money than Xeon E5-2620.

Detailed specifications

Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620 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 speed3.06 GHz2 GHz
Boost clock speed3.46 GHz2.5 GHz
Bus rateno data7.2 GT/s
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB (per core)
L2 cache256 KB (per core)256 KB (per core)
L3 cache12288 KB (shared)15360 KB (shared)
Chip lithography32 nm32 nm
Die size239 mm2435 mm2
Maximum core temperature81 °C77 °C
Number of transistors1,170 million2,270 million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--

Compatibility

Information on Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620 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
SocketFCLGA1366,LGA1366FCLGA2011
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt95 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® SSE4.2Intel® AVX
AES-NI++
AVX-+
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.01.0
Hyper-Threading Technology++
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring-+
Flex Memory Accessno data-
Demand Based Switching++
PAE40 Bitno data

Security technologies

Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT++
EDB++

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620 are enumerated here.

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

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3DDR3
Maximum memory size288 GB384 GB
Max memory channels34
Maximum memory bandwidth32 GB/s42.6 GB/s
ECC memory support++

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620.

PCIe version2.03.0
PCI Express lanesno data40

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 X5675 4.03
+21%
Xeon E5-2620 3.33

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 X5675 6396
+20.8%
Xeon E5-2620 5293

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 X5675 502
+24%
Xeon E5-2620 405

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 X5675 2464
+25.5%
Xeon E5-2620 1963

Gaming performance

Pros & cons summary


Performance score 4.03 3.33
Recency 14 February 2011 6 March 2012

Xeon X5675 has a 21% higher aggregate performance score.

Xeon E5-2620, on the other hand, has an age advantage of 1 year.

The Xeon X5675 is our recommended choice as it beats the Xeon E5-2620 in performance tests.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon X5675 and Xeon E5-2620, 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 X5675
Xeon X5675
Intel Xeon E5-2620
Xeon E5-2620

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.


4.5 635 votes

Rate Xeon X5675 on a scale of 1 to 5:

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
4 517 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

Questions & comments

Here you can ask a question about Xeon X5675 or Xeon E5-2620, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.