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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core i7 2960XM

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 2960XM

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 1.06 GHz More than 2.5x higher clock speed
Much better turbo clock speed 1,300 MHz vs 500 MHz More than 2.5x better turbo clock speed
Much higher GPU clock speed 650 MHz vs 166 MHz Around 4x higher GPU clock speed
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 2 MB 4x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.13 GHz vs 1.07 GHz More than 3.8x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better PassMark score 7,166 vs 684 Around 10.5x better PassMark score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Significantly more l3 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l3 cache per core
More threads 8 vs 2 6 more threads
More cores 4 vs 2 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Better performance per watt 3.59 pt/W vs 1.55 pt/W More than 2.2x better performance per watt
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.7 GHz vs 1.07 GHz More than 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Sep, 2011 vs Aug, 2010 Release date over 1 years later
Front view of Intel Celeron U3405

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron U3405

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 14.63W vs 44.69W 3.1x lower typical power consumption
More l2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core vs 0.25 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 4.34 $/year vs 13.25 $/year 3.1x lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 15.77 $/year vs 48.18 $/year 3.1x lower annual commercial energy cost
Better performance per dollar 0.26 pt/$ vs 0.18 pt/$ Around 45% better performance per dollar

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 2960XM vs Celeron U3405

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 2960XM  vs
Celeron U3405 
Clock speed 2.7 GHz 1.06 GHz
Cores Quad core Dual core
Socket type
rPGA 988B
BGA 1288

features

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

power consumption

TDP 55W 18W
Annual home energy cost 13.25 $/year 4.34 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 48.18 $/year 15.77 $/year
Performance per watt 3.59 pt/W 1.55 pt/W
Typical power consumption 44.69W 14.63W

bus

Architecture DMI DMI
Number of links 1 1
Transfer rate 5,000 MT/s 2,500 MT/s

details

Core i7 2960XM  vs
Celeron U3405 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 8 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 2 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 32 nm 32 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 27 14

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.13 GHz 1.07 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.7 GHz 1.07 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.13 GHz 1.07 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU GPU
Label Intel® HD Graphics 3000 Intel® HD Graphics
Number of displays supported 2 2
GPU clock speed 650 MHz 166 MHz
Turbo clock speed 1,300 MHz 500 MHz

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Memory type
DDR3-1600
DDR3-1333
DDR3-1066
DDR3
DDR3-800
Channels Dual Channel Dual Channel
Supports ECC No Yes
Maximum bandwidth 25,600 MB/s 17,066.66 MB/s
Maximum memory size 32,768 MB 8,192 MB
Intel Core i7 2960XM
Report a correction
Intel Celeron U3405
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus