Winner
Intel Core Duo T2400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core Duo T2400 based on its performance and single-core performance.
See full details Intel Core Duo T2400 vs AMD E 240 |
Released January, 2006
Intel Core Duo T2400
- 1.83 GHz
- Dual core
4.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core Duo T2400
 | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 73,900 MB/s | | Significantly more l2 cache 2 MB |
| | Higher clock speed 1.83 GHz | | Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score 1,403 |
VS
Released January, 2011
AMD E 240
- 1.5 GHz
- Single core
6.9 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the AMD E 240
| | Much newer manufacturing process 40 nm | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Newer Jan, 2011 | | Lower typical power consumption 14.63W |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of T2400 vs 240 among all CPUs
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more | |
Integrated Graphics | |
Integrated GPU performance for graphics | |
| Sky Diver and Cloud Gate | |
Integrated Graphics (OpenCL) | |
Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing | |
| CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more | |
Performance per Watt | |
How efficiently does the processor use electricity? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more | |
| 6.9 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core Duo T2400CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 73,900 MB/s | vs | 45,800 MB/s | More than 60% better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | |||
| Higher clock speed | 1.83 GHz | vs | 1.5 GHz | More than 20% higher clock speed | |||
| Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 1,403 | vs | 513 | Around 2.8x better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| More cores | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 40 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Newer | Jan, 2011 | vs | Jan, 2006 | Release date over 5 years later | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 14.63W | vs | 25.19W | More than 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 4.34 $/year | vs | 7.47 $/year | More than 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 15.77 $/year | vs | 27.16 $/year | More than 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core Duo T2400 vs E 240
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core Duo T2400 | vs | E 240 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.83 GHz | 1.5 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Single core | |
| Socket type | |||
| 479 | |||
| 940 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| AMD64 | |||
| AMD-V | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
details | Core Duo T2400 | vs | E 240 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 2 | 1 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 40 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 11 | 5 | |
| Voltage range | 1.16 - 1.3V | 1.18 - 1.35V | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Radeon™ HD 6310 | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | 11.0 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 500 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 500 MHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 31W | 18W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 7.47 $/year | 4.34 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 27.16 $/year | 15.77 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 2.06 pt/W | 1.81 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 25.19W | 14.63W | |
 Intel Core Duo T2400  Report a correction |  AMD E 240 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| Intel Core i5 2500 vs Xeon W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A8 6410 vs Intel Core i5 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 vs Intel Core i5 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| Intel Pentium N3540 vs Core i3 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $230 | $248 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i7 4770K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| AMD A6 5200 vs Intel Core i5 3470 | ||
