Core 2 Duo T7100 vs Xeon E5-2620

#ad 
Buy on Amazon
VS

Primary details

Comparing Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.

Place in performance ranking1485not rated
Place by popularitynot in top-100not in top-100
Cost-effectiveness evaluation1.73no data
Market segmentServerLaptop
Seriesno dataIntel Core 2 Duo
Architecture codenameSandy Bridge-EP (2012)Merom (2006−2008)
Release date6 March 2012 (12 years ago)9 May 2007 (17 years ago)
Launch price (MSRP)$36$197
Current price$72 (2x MSRP)$29 (0.1x MSRP)

Cost-effectiveness evaluation

Performance per price, higher is better.

no data

Detailed specifications

Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100 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)2 (Dual-core)
Threads122
Base clock speed2 GHz1.8 GHz
Boost clock speed2.5 GHz1.8 GHz
Bus supportno data800 MHz
L1 cache64 KB (per core)64 KB
L2 cache256 KB (per core)2 MB
L3 cache15360 KB (shared)0 KB
Chip lithography32 nm65 nm
Die size435 mm2143 mm2
Maximum core temperature77 °C100 °C
Number of transistors2,270 million291 Million
64 bit support++
Windows 11 compatibility--
Unlocked multiplierNoNo

Compatibility

Information on Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100 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 configuration21
SocketFCLGA2011PBGA479,PPGA478
Power consumption (TDP)95 Watt35 Watt

Technologies and extensions

Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.

Instruction set extensionsIntel® AVXno data
AES-NI+no data
AVX+no data
Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST)++
Turbo Boost Technology1.0-
Hyper-Threading Technology+-
Idle States++
Thermal Monitoring+no data
Flex Memory Access-no data
Demand Based Switching+-
FSB parityno data-
StatusDiscontinuedDiscontinued

Security technologies

Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.

TXT+-
EDB++
Identity Protection-no data

Virtualization technologies

Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100 are enumerated here.

VT-d+no data
VT-x++
EPT+no data

Memory specs

Types, maximum amount and channel quantity of RAM supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.

Supported memory typesDDR3no data
Maximum memory size384 GBno data
Max memory channels4no data
Maximum memory bandwidth42.6 GB/sno data
ECC memory support+no data

Peripherals

Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100.

PCIe version3.0no data
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.


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.

Benchmark coverage: 68%

Xeon E5-2620 5291
+776%
Core 2 Duo T7100 604

Xeon E5-2620 outperforms Core 2 Duo T7100 by 776% in Passmark.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Xeon E5-2620 401
+90%
Core 2 Duo T7100 211

Xeon E5-2620 outperforms Core 2 Duo T7100 by 90% in GeekBench 5 Single-Core.

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.

Benchmark coverage: 42%

Xeon E5-2620 1948
+449%
Core 2 Duo T7100 355

Xeon E5-2620 outperforms Core 2 Duo T7100 by 449% in GeekBench 5 Multi-Core.

Pros & cons summary


Recency 6 March 2012 9 May 2007
Physical cores 6 2
Threads 12 2
Cost $36 $197
Chip lithography 32 nm 65 nm
Power consumption (TDP) 95 Watt 35 Watt

We couldn't decide between Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100. We've got no test results to judge.

Be aware that Xeon E5-2620 is a server/workstation processor while Core 2 Duo T7100 is a notebook one.


Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5-2620 and Core 2 Duo T7100, 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 Core 2 Duo T7100
Core 2 Duo T7100

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.


4 509 votes

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

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
3 53 votes

Rate Core 2 Duo T7100 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 Core 2 Duo T7100, agree or disagree with our judgements, or report an error or mismatch.