Winner
Intel Core i5 2400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 2400 based on its .
See full details | Intel Core i5 2400 vs i3 4150 |
![]() | Much more l2 cache 1 MB | ![]() | More cores 4 |
![]() | Supports trusted computing Yes |
![]() | Significantly higher clock speed 3.5 GHz | ![]() | Much lower typical power consumption 43.88W |
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm | ![]() | Much lower annual commercial energy cost 47.3 $/year |
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 | |
Fire Strike |
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? | |
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more |
8.5 | CPUBoss Score |
Combination of all six facets | |
| |||||||
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 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| |||||||
Significantly higher clock speed | 3.5 GHz | vs | 3.1 GHz | Around 15% higher clock speed | |||
Much lower typical power consumption | 43.88W | vs | 93.6W | 2.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 22 nm | vs | 32 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 47.3 $/year | vs | 100.92 $/year | 2.1x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 13.01 $/year | vs | 27.75 $/year | 2.1x lower annual home energy cost | |||
Newer | Feb, 2014 | vs | Jan, 2011 | Release date over 3 years later |
summary | Core i5 2400 | vs | i3 4150 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 3.1 GHz | 3.5 GHz | |
Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 1155 | |||
LGA 1150 | |||
Is unlocked | No | No | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | Yes | No | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
F16C | |||
MMX | |||
SSE4 | |||
AVX | |||
SSE3 | |||
EM64T | |||
SSE | |||
SSE4.1 | |||
FMA3 | |||
SSE4.2 | |||
Supplemental SSE3 | |||
AES | |||
AVX 2.0 | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
Memory type | |||
DDR3-1600 | |||
DDR3-1333 | |||
DDR3-1066 | |||
DDR3 | |||
Channels | Dual Channel | Dual Channel | |
Supports ECC | No | Yes | |
Maximum bandwidth | 21,333.32 MB/s | 25,600 MB/s |
details | Core i5 2400 | vs | i3 4150 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 4 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 1 MB | 0.5 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.25 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
L3 cache | 6 MB | 3 MB | |
L3 cache per core | 1.5 MB/core | 1.5 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 32 nm | 22 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 31 | 35 | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.6°C | Unknown - 72°C | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | GPU | GPU | |
Label | Intel® HD Graphics 2000 | Intel® HD graphics 4400 | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 95W | 54W | |
Annual home energy cost | 27.75 $/year | 13.01 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 100.92 $/year | 47.3 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 8.14 pt/W | 13.38 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 93.6W | 43.88W | |
bus | |||
Transfer rate | 5,000 MT/s | 5,000 MT/s |
Intel Core i5 2400 ![]() | Intel Core i3 4150 ![]() |
Looking for a desktop?
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$205 | $180 | |
2400 vs 3470 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$205 | $125 | |
2400 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$205 | $144 | |
2400 vs 650 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$205 | $300 | |
2400 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$205 | $150 | |
2400 vs 2100 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$205 | $305 | |
2400 vs 2600 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$205 | $130 | |
2400 vs 3240 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
W3520 vs 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
4200U vs 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$125 | $50 | |
3220 vs 5300 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$350 | ||
6700K vs 7th Gen A12-9700P | ||