Xeon E-2414 vs E5220
Primary details
Comparing Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414 processor market type (desktop or notebook), architecture, sales start time and price.
| Place in the ranking | not rated | not rated |
| Place by popularity | not in top-100 | not in top-100 |
| Market segment | Server | Server |
| Architecture codename | no data | Raptor Lake-S (2023−2024) |
| Release date | 1 January 2008 (16 years ago) | 14 December 2023 (less than a year ago) |
| Launch price (MSRP) | no data | $225 |
Detailed specifications
Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414 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 cores | no data | 4 (Quad-Core) |
| Threads | no data | 4 |
| Base clock speed | 2.33 GHz | 2.6 GHz |
| Boost clock speed | no data | 4.5 GHz |
| Bus rate | no data | 16 GT/s |
| L1 cache | no data | 80 KB (per core) |
| L2 cache | no data | 1.25 MB (per core) |
| L3 cache | 6 MB L2 Cache | 12 MB (shared) |
| Chip lithography | 45 nm | Intel 7 nm |
| Die size | no data | 163 mm2 |
| Maximum core temperature | 66 °C | 100 °C |
| 64 bit support | + | + |
| Windows 11 compatibility | - | no data |
| VID voltage range | 0.85V-1.35V | no data |
Compatibility
Information on Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414 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 configuration | no data | 1 |
| Socket | LGA771 | FCLGA1700 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
Technologies and extensions
Technological solutions and additional instructions supported by Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414. You'll probably need this information if you require some particular technology.
| Instruction set extensions | no data | Intel® SSE4.1, Intel® SSE4.2, Intel® AVX2 |
| AES-NI | - | + |
| AVX | - | + |
| Enhanced SpeedStep (EIST) | + | + |
| Turbo Boost Technology | - | 2 |
| Hyper-Threading Technology | - | - |
| Idle States | - | + |
| Thermal Monitoring | - | + |
| Demand Based Switching | - | no data |
| Turbo Boost Max 3.0 | no data | - |
| FSB parity | - | no data |
Security technologies
Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414 technologies aimed at improving security, for example, by protecting against hacks.
| TXT | - | + |
| EDB | + | + |
| Secure Key | no data | + |
| OS Guard | no data | + |
Virtualization technologies
Virtual machine speed-up technologies supported by Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414 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 E5220 and Xeon E-2414. Depending on the motherboard, higher memory frequencies may be supported.
| Supported memory types | no data | DDR5-4800 |
| Maximum memory size | no data | 128 GB |
| Max memory channels | no data | 2 |
| ECC memory support | - | + |
Graphics specifications
General parameters of integrated GPUs, if any.
| Integrated graphics card | no data | N/A |
Peripherals
Specifications and connection of peripherals supported by Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414.
| PCIe version | no data | 5 |
| PCI Express lanes | no data | 16 |
Pros & cons summary
| Recency | 1 January 2008 | 14 December 2023 |
| Power consumption (TDP) | 65 Watt | 55 Watt |
Xeon E-2414 has an age advantage of 15 years, and 18.2% lower power consumption.
We couldn't decide between Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414. We've got no test results to judge.
Should you still have questions on choice between Xeon E5220 and Xeon E-2414, ask them in Comments section, and we shall answer.
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.
