0 Comments
| Intel Celeron E3200 vs E1200 |
First seen on January, 2013
Intel Celeron E3200
- 2.4 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Celeron E3200
![]() | Much more l2 cache 1 MB | ![]() | Much higher clock speed 2.4 GHz |
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm | ![]() | Much better performance per watt 1.8 pt/W |
VS
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much 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 higher clock speed | 2.4 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 50% higher clock speed | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Much better performance per watt | 1.8 pt/W | vs | 0.78 pt/W | More than 2.2x better performance per watt | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.82 GHz | vs | 3.16 GHz | More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.2 GHz | vs | 2.69 GHz | More than 55% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the E1200 vs the E3200. | |||||||
Benchmarks Real world tests of Celeron E3200 vs E1200
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron E3200
2,394
Celeron E1200
2,159
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron E3200
1,326
Celeron E1200
1,237
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Celeron E3200
109,650 MB/s
Celeron E1200
127.7 MB/s
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Celeron E3200 | vs | E1200 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 1.6 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
MMX | |||
SSE3 | |||
SSE | |||
Supplemental SSE3 | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
bus | |||
Clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
details | Celeron E3200 | vs | E1200 |
---|---|---|---|
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 1 MB | 0.5 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 45 nm | 65 nm | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3.82 GHz | 3.16 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.2 GHz | 2.69 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.82 GHz | 3.16 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 65W | 65W | |
Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 1.8 pt/W | 0.78 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 52.81W |
Intel Celeron E3200 ![]() | Intel Celeron E1200 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
Intel Xeon W3520 vs Core i5 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
Intel Celeron 847 vs Core i3 3217U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
Intel Core i3 4005U vs Pentium N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
Intel Core i5 3470 vs AMD A6 5200 | ||