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 E3400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron E3400

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 180 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 0.5 GHz Around 5.2x higher clock speed
Significantly more l2 cache 1 MB vs 0.13 MB Around 7.8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Newer Jan, 2010 vs Jun, 1999 Release date over 10 years later
Significantly more l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core More than 3.8x more l2 cache per core
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Front view of AMD K6-2+ 500

Reasons to consider the
AMD K6-2+ 500

Report a correction

CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD K6-2+ 500 vs the Intel Celeron E3400.

Features Key features of the Celeron E3400  vs K6-2+ 500 

clock speed

Celeron E3400
2.6 GHz
K6-2+ 500
0.5 GHz

L2 cache

K6-2+ 500
0.13 MB

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Celeron E3400  vs
K6-2+ 500 
Clock speed 2.6 GHz 0.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 775
Slot A
Super 7

features

Has a NX bit Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3

details

Celeron E3400  vs
K6-2+ 500 
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 1 MB 0.13 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.13 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 180 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

power consumption

Typical power consumption 52.81W N/A

bus

Clock speed 800 MHz 100 MHz
Intel Celeron E3400
Report a correction
AMD K6-2+ 500
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus