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 Celeron 1037U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1037U

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 45 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much lower typical power consumption 13.81W vs 85.31W 6.2x lower typical power consumption
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Significantly better performance per watt 5.02 pt/W vs 1.38 pt/W Around 3.8x better performance per watt
Newer Jan, 2013 vs Jan, 2009 Release date over 4 years later
Much lower annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year vs 25.29 $/year 6.2x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year vs 91.98 $/year 6.2x lower annual commercial energy cost
Front view of AMD Opteron 2386 SE

Reasons to consider the
AMD Opteron 2386 SE

Report a correction
Significantly higher clock speed 2.8 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 55% higher clock speed
Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB vs 1 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More l3 cache 6 MB vs 2 MB 3x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 2 vs 1 Twice as many CPUs in SMP configuration
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 2.8 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 55% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 3,538 vs 1,733 More than 2x better PassMark score
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.8 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 55% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron 1037U vs Opteron 2386 SE

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron 1037U  vs
Opteron 2386 SE 
Clock speed 1.8 GHz 2.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Quad core
Socket type
BGA 1023
F

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Instruction set extensions
SSE4a
SSE2
MMX
SSE4
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
SSE4.2
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 17W 105W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 25.29 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 14.89 $/year 91.98 $/year
Performance per watt 5.02 pt/W 1.38 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 85.31W

details

Celeron 1037U  vs
Opteron 2386 SE 
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 2 MB 6 MB
L3 cache per core 1 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 2
Clock multiplier 18 14

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.8 GHz 2.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.8 GHz 2.8 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.8 GHz 2.8 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,000 MHz N/A
Intel Celeron 1037U
Report a correction
AMD Opteron 2386 SE
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus