CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 760 vs 3470

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Cinebench R11.5, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core)

Overclocking

How much speed can you get out of the processor?

Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value

Winner
Intel Core i5 3470 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i5 3470  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
Front view of Intel Core i5 3470

Intel Core i5 3470

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i5 760

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 760

Report a correction
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 6 MB Around 35% more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Significantly higher Maximum Operating Temperature 72.7 °C vs 67.4 °C Around 10% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
More l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1.5 MB/core Around 35% more l3 cache per core
Better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.15 GHz vs 3.9 GHz More than 5% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.32 GHz vs 3.94 GHz Around 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Core i5 3470

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3470

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 45 nms 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
Higher turbo clock speed 3.6 GHz vs 3.33 GHz Around 10% higher turbo clock speed
Higher clock speed 3.2 GHz vs 2.8 GHz Around 15% higher clock speed
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,906 vs 1,192 Around 60% better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly lower peak power consumption 96.6W vs 132W More than 25% lower peak power consumption
Supports more RAM 32,768 MB vs 16,384 MB Supports 2x more RAM
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Lower typical power consumption 86.05W vs 114.5W Around 25% lower typical power consumption
Significantly better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score 1.52 vs 1.12 More than 35% better cinebench r11.5 (1-core) score
Better PassMark score 6,607 vs 3,916 Around 70% better PassMark score
Lower idle power consumption 54.4W vs 62W More than 10% lower idle power consumption
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 9,268 vs 5,833 Around 60% better geekbench (32-bit) score
Better cinebench r11.5 score 5.71 vs 3.93 More than 45% better cinebench r11.5 score
Better performance per dollar 4.61 pt/$ vs 3.02 pt/$ Around 55% better performance per dollar
Better 3DMark11 physics score 6,100 vs 4,760 Around 30% better 3DMark11 physics score
Marginally newer Jun, 2012 vs Jul, 2010 Release date over 1 years later
Better performance per watt 8.16 pt/W vs 4.87 pt/W More than 65% better performance per watt
Lower annual commercial energy cost 84.62 $/year vs 115.63 $/year More than 25% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 31.22 $/year vs 39.42 $/year More than 20% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i5 760 vs 3470

GeekBench (32-bit)

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core i5 760 Core i5 3470 @ community.futuremark.com

Cinebench R11.5

CineBench R11.5 returned a multicore CPU score of 5.67 for the newer CPU and 5.41 for the older one, with an even tighter gap present between the two when we only used one CPU for the test (1.48 for the Core i5-2500K, 1.51 for the Core i5-3470).
Core i5 3470 | by PCMag (May, 2012)

Cinebench R11.5 (Single Core)

Passmark

Core i5 760 Core i5 3470 @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Reviews Word on the street

Core i5 760  vs 3470 

10.0
6.0
It's therefore a quad-core chip based on Intel's 45nm Nehalem processor architecture.
Core i5 760

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i5 760  vs
3470 
Clock speed 2.8 GHz 3.2 GHz
Turbo clock speed 3.33 GHz 3.6 GHz
Cores Quad core Quad core
Socket type
LGA 1156
LGA 1155
Is unlocked No No
Is hyperthreaded No No

features

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

gpu

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Intel® HD Graphics 2500
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,100 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No No
Maximum bandwidth 21,333.32 MB/s 25,600 MB/s
Maximum memory size 16,384 MB 32,768 MB

details

Core i5 760  vs
3470 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 4 4
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.25 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 6 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nms 22 nms
Transistor count 774,000,000 1,400,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 21 32
Voltage range 6500 - 1.4V Unknown - 1.13V
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.7°C Unknown - 67.4°C

overclocking

Overclock popularity 131 22
Overclock review score 0.9 0.7
Overclocked clock speed 4.15 GHz 3.9 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.32 GHz 3.94 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.15 GHz 3.9 GHz

power consumption

TDP 95W 77W
Annual home energy cost 39.42 $/year 31.22 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 115.63 $/year 84.62 $/year
Performance per watt 4.87 pt/W 8.16 pt/W
Idle power consumption 62W 54.4W
Peak power consumption 132W 96.6W
Typical power consumption 114.5W 86.05W

bus

Architecture DMI DMI 2.0
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 2,500 MT/s 5,000 MT/s
Intel Core i5 760
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 3470
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus