Winner
Intel Core i3 3110M
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i3 3110M based on its single-core performance.
See full details Intel Core i3 3110M vs Atom C2750 |
Released June, 2012
Intel Core i3 3110M
- 2.4 GHz
- Dual core
7.8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core i3 3110M
 | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Higher Maximum operating temperature 105 °C |
by Ian-Cutress (Sep, 2014)The first batch of 4.5W Core M processors aim at either the 11.6-inch, 8mm thick fanless tablet design as indicated in the graph above, or similarly a 10.1-inch 10mm thick tablet will also be suitable.
VS
Released July, 2013
Intel Atom C2750
- 2.4 GHz
- Octa core
5.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Atom C2750
| | Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score 412,200 MB/s | | Much better performance per watt 11.8 pt/W |
| | More cores 8 | | Significantly better performance per dollar 1.38 pt/$ |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3110M vs C2750 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 | |
| 7.8 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 105 °C | vs | 97 °C | Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| |||||||
| Much better geekbench 3 AES single core score | 412,200 MB/s | vs | 125,500 MB/s | More than 3.2x better geekbench 3 AES single core score | |||
| Much better performance per watt | 11.8 pt/W | vs | 3.69 pt/W | Around 3.2x better performance per watt | |||
| More cores | 8 | vs | 2 | 6 more cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Significantly better performance per dollar | 1.38 pt/$ | vs | 0.57 pt/$ | Around 2.5x better performance per dollar | |||
| More threads | 8 | vs | 4 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 16.25W | vs | 28.44W | Around 45% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Newer | Jul, 2013 | vs | Jun, 2012 | Release date over a year later | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 4.82 $/year | vs | 8.43 $/year | Around 45% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 17.52 $/year | vs | 30.66 $/year | Around 45% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3110M vs Atom C2750
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
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core i3 3110M | vs | Atom C2750 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Octa core | |
features | |||
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| EM64T | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 35W | 20W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 4.82 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | 17.52 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 3.69 pt/W | 11.8 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 16.25W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | DMI 2.0 | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | Core i3 3110M | vs | Atom C2750 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 8 | |
| Manufacture process | 22 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 105°C | Unknown - 97°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 2.43 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 2.4 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 2.43 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 4000 | N/A | |
| Latest DirectX | 11.0 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 650 MHz | N/A | |
| Turbo clock speed | 1,000 MHz | N/A | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3L-1600 | |||
| DDR3L-1333 | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
| Supports ECC | No | Yes | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 12,800 MB/s | |
 Intel Core i3 3110M  Report a correction |  Intel Atom C2750 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| 66 € | ||
| 3110M vs 4500M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 66 € | $161 | |
| 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 66 € | ||
| 3110M vs 6210 | ||
| | VS |  |
| 66 € | $225 | |
| 3110M vs 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| 66 € | $134 | |
| 3110M vs 2020M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 66 € | 25 € | |
| 3110M vs 4400M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 66 € | $161 | |
| 3110M vs N3520 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| 363 € | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9420 | ||
 | VS |  |
| 346 € | 139 € | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6100U vs N4200 | ||
 | VS | |
| 225 € | 363 € | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
| | VS | |
| 363 € | ||
| 6700K vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
