0 Comments
| Intel Core2 Duo E4300 vs Celeron E3400 |
Released July, 2006
Intel Core2 Duo E4300
- 1.8 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo E4300
![]() | Much more l2 cache 2 MB | ![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 1 MB/core |
![]() | Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.6 GHz |
VS
Released January, 2010
Intel Celeron E3400
- 2.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Celeron E3400
![]() | Much higher clock speed 2.6 GHz | ![]() | Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,038 |
![]() | Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,275 | ![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 1 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much more l2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.6 GHz | vs | 2.6 GHz | Around 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
Much higher clock speed | 2.6 GHz | vs | 1.8 GHz | Around 45% higher clock speed | |||
Much better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,038 | vs | 665 | More than 55% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | 2,275 | vs | 1,660 | More than 35% better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Much better performance per watt | 1.64 pt/W | vs | 1.14 pt/W | Around 45% better performance per watt | |||
Has virtualization support | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines | |||
Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 74.1 °C | vs | 61.4 °C | More than 20% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.85 GHz | vs | 3.21 GHz | More than 20% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Newer | Jan, 2010 | vs | Jul, 2006 | Release date over 3 years later |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E4300 vs Celeron E3400
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E4300
1,754
Celeron E3400
2,483
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E4300
960
Celeron E3400
1,352
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E4300
77,000 MB/s
Celeron E3400
110,600 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E4300
1,660
Celeron E3400
2,275
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E4300
3,008
Celeron E3400
2,681
GeekBench
Core2 Duo E4300
3,008
Celeron E3400
2,681
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Core2 Duo E4300
1,050
Celeron E3400
1,430
PassMark (Single Core)
Core2 Duo E4300
665
Celeron E3400
1,038
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo E4300 | vs | Celeron E3400 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.8 GHz | 2.6 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
Has virtualization support | No | Yes | |
Instruction set extensions | |||
SSE2 | |||
MMX | |||
SSE3 | |||
SSE | |||
Supplemental SSE3 | |||
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 65W | 65W | |
Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
Performance per watt | 1.14 pt/W | 1.64 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 52.81W |
details | Core2 Duo E4300 | vs | Celeron E3400 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 2 MB | 1 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 9 | 13 | |
Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 0.85 - 1.36V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 61.4°C | Unknown - 74.1°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 3.21 GHz | 3.85 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.6 GHz | 2.6 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.21 GHz | 3.85 GHz | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | None | None | |
Label | N/A | N/A | |
Latest DirectX | N/A | N/A | |
Number of displays supported | N/A | N/A | |
GPU clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
Turbo clock speed | N/A | N/A | |
3DMark06 | N/A | N/A | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
Intel Core2 Duo E4300 ![]() | Intel Celeron E3400 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$42 | ||
Intel Celeron E3400 vs Core2 Quad Q6600 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$42 | $72 | |
Intel Celeron E3400 vs Pentium E5300 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$42 | $179 | |
Intel Celeron E3400 vs Core2 Duo E8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$42 | $64 | |
Intel Celeron E3400 vs Pentium E5700 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$42 | $125 | |
Intel Celeron E3400 vs Core2 Duo E7500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$42 | $67 | |
Intel Celeron E3400 vs Pentium E5400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$106 | ||
Intel Core2 Duo E4300 vs Pentium E2180 | ||
Popular Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$305 | $300 | |
Intel Xeon W3520 vs Core i5 2500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$272 | $350 | |
Intel Core i7 4790K vs 6700K | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
Intel Core i5 4200U vs AMD A8 6410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$281 | ||
Intel Core i5 6200U vs AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
Intel Core i3 4005U vs Pentium N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
Intel Core i5 3470 vs AMD A6 5200 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
Intel Celeron 847 vs Core i3 3217U | ||