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 4770

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 4770

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 3.4 GHz vs 1.46 GHz More than 2.2x higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 22 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 13,074 vs 590 Around 22.2x better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
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
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 2,029 vs 422 More than 4.8x better PassMark (Single core) score
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
More l3 cache 8 MB vs 3 MB Around 2.8x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later
Much better performance per watt 10.41 pt/W vs 0.92 pt/W More than 11.2x better performance per watt
Much better PassMark score 9,523 vs 317 More than 30x better PassMark score
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.85 GHz vs 2.01 GHz More than 90% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
More threads 8 vs 1 7 more threads
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
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.01 GHz vs 1.47 GHz Around 2.8x better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron M 410

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 410

Report a correction
Much lower typical power consumption 21.94W vs 68.25W 3.1x 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 more l3 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 2 MB/core 50% more l3 cache per core
Much lower annual home energy cost 6.5 $/year vs 20.24 $/year 3.1x lower annual home energy cost
Much lower annual commercial energy cost 23.65 $/year vs 73.58 $/year 3.1x lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core i7 4770 vs Celeron M 410

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Core i7 4770
4,500,000 MB/s
Celeron M 410
63.9 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core i7 4770  vs
Celeron M 410 
Clock speed 3.4 GHz 1.46 GHz
Cores Quad core Single core

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes No
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

power consumption

TDP 84W 27W
Annual home energy cost 20.24 $/year 6.5 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 73.58 $/year 23.65 $/year
Performance per watt 10.41 pt/W 0.92 pt/W
Typical power consumption 68.25W 21.94W

bus

Architecture DMI 2.0 FSB
Number of links 0 1

details

Core i7 4770  vs
Celeron M 410 
Architecture x86-64 x86
Threads 8 1
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.25 MB/core 1 MB/core
L3 cache 8 MB 3 MB
L3 cache per core 2 MB/core 3 MB/core
Manufacture process 22 nm 65 nm
Max CPUs 1 1

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.85 GHz 2.01 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.01 GHz 1.47 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.85 GHz 2.01 GHz

integrated graphics

GPU GPU None
Label Intel® HD Graphics 4600 N/A
Number of displays supported 3 N/A
GPU clock speed 350 MHz N/A
Turbo clock speed 1,200 MHz N/A

memory controller

Memory controller Built-in Built-in
Supports ECC No No
Intel Core i7 4770
Report a correction
Intel Celeron M 410
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus