CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 3217U vs 1007U

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU), Passmark and GeekBench (32-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Features

How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Features

Winner
Intel Core i3 3217U 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i3 3217U  based on its .

See full details

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

Intel Core i3 3217U

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i3 3217U

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i3 3217U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i3 3217U

Report a correction
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Higher clock speed 1.8 GHz vs 1.5 GHz More than 20% higher clock speed
More l3 cache 3 MB vs 2 MB 50% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
More l3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Better PassMark score 2,298 vs 1,459 Around 60% better PassMark score
Slightly better turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz vs 1,000 MHz 5% better turbo clock speed
Better 3DMark06 CPU score 2,229 vs 1,610 Around 40% better 3DMark06 CPU score
Slightly better geekbench (32-bit) score 2,918 vs 1,979 More than 45% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better performance per watt 20.32 pt/W vs 13.51 pt/W More than 50% better performance per watt
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.8 GHz vs 1.5 GHz More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.8 GHz vs 1.5 GHz More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron 1007U

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron 1007U

Report a correction
Significantly better performance per dollar 3.06 pt/$ vs 1.54 pt/$ Around 2x better performance per dollar
Marginally newer Jan, 2013 vs Jun, 2012 Release date 7 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i3 3217U vs Celeron 1007U

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i3 3217U  vs
Celeron 1007U 
Clock speed 1.8 GHz 1.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
BGA 1023
Is hyperthreaded Yes No

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has vitualization support Yes Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
SSE4
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

gpu

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4000 Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 3 3
GPU clock speed 350 MHz 350 MHz
Turbo clock speed 1,050 MHz 1,000 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3L-1600
DDR3
DDR3RS-1333
DDR3L-1333
DDR3RS-1600
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 12,800 MB/s

details

Core i3 3217U  vs
Celeron 1007U 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 2
L2 cache 0.5 MB 0.5 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 3 MB 2 MB
L3 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nms 22 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 18 15
Operating temperature Unknown - 105°C Unknown - 105°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 1.8 GHz 1.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 1.8 GHz 1.5 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 1.8 GHz 1.5 GHz

power consumption

TDP 17W 17W
Annual home energy cost 4.1 $/year 4.1 $/year
Performance per watt 20.32 pt/W 13.51 pt/W
Typical power consumption 13.81W 13.81W

bus

Architecture DMI 2.0 DMI
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 5,000 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Core i3 3217U
Report a correction
Intel Celeron 1007U
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus