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 i5 2500

CPUBoss Winner
Front view of Intel Core i5 2500

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 2500

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 2500

Report a correction
Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much higher clock speed 3.3 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 2.2x higher clock speed
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
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 virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,857 vs 424 Around 4.5x better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better performance per watt 9.04 pt/W vs 1.45 pt/W Around 6.2x better performance per watt
Significantly better PassMark score 6,257 vs 327 Around 19.2x better PassMark score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
More cores 4 vs 1 3 more cores; run more applications at once
Newer Jan, 2011 vs Aug, 2004 Release date over 6 years later
More threads 4 vs 1 3 more threads
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.21 GHz vs 1.4 GHz More than 3x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron M 360

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 360

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 17.06W vs 77.19W 4.5x lower typical power consumption
Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.83 GHz vs 3.7 GHz More than 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Much lower annual home energy cost 5.06 $/year vs 22.89 $/year 4.5x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 18.4 $/year vs 83.22 $/year 4.5x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 2500 vs Celeron M 360

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 2500  vs
Celeron M 360 
Clock speed 3.3 GHz 1.4 GHz
Cores Quad core Single core
Socket type
LGA 1155
479

features

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

power consumption

TDP 95W 21W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 5.06 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 18.4 $/year
Performance per watt 9.04 pt/W 1.45 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 17.06W

bus

Architecture DMI FSB
Number of links 1 1

details

Core i5 2500  vs
Celeron M 360 
Architecture x86-64 x86
Threads 4 1
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 33 14

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.7 GHz 4.83 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.21 GHz 1.4 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.7 GHz 4.83 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 2000 N/A
Number of displays supported 2 N/A
GPU clock speed 850 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,100 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC No No
Intel Core i5 2500
Report a correction
Intel Celeron M 360
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus