Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel 7500U

Reasons to consider the
Intel 7500U

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 14 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 2.4 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
More threads 4 vs 1 3 more threads
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Front view of AMD Opteron 250

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 250

Report a correction
More l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.5 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Lower typical power consumption 2.44W vs 12.19W 5x lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 0.72 $/year vs 3.61 $/year 5x lower annual home energy cost
Lower annual commercial energy cost 2.63 $/year vs 13.14 $/year 5x lower annual commercial energy cost

Features Key features of the 7500U  vs Opteron 250 

clock speed

7500U
2.7 GHz
Opteron 250
2.4 GHz

L2 cache

7500U
0.5 MB

TDP

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

7500U  vs
Opteron 250 
Clock speed 2.7 GHz 2.4 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
AVX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
AES
AVX 2.0
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

details

7500U  vs
Opteron 250 
Threads 4 1
L2 cache 0.5 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 14 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 1 2

power consumption

TDP 15W 3W
Annual home energy cost 3.61 $/year 0.72 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 13.14 $/year 2.63 $/year
Typical power consumption 12.19W 2.44W
Intel 7500U
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 250
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus