CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E6540 vs E3400 among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Fire Strike

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

2.8

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron E3400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron E3400  based on its overclocking.

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

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E6540

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E6540

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 1 MB 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much better PassMark score 1,464 vs 1,430 Almost the same
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 4x more l2 cache per core
Front view of Intel Celeron E3400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron E3400

Report a correction
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 0.98 pt/W Around 70% better performance per watt
Higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 2.33 GHz More than 10% higher clock speed
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.85 GHz vs 3.41 GHz Around 15% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Higher Maximum operating temperature 74.1 °C vs 72 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Newer Jan, 2010 vs Jul, 2007 Release date over 2 years later
Better overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.6 GHz vs 2.33 GHz More than 10% better overclocked clock speed (Water)

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E6540 vs Celeron E3400

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

Core2 Duo E6540
99.4 MB/s
Celeron E3400
110,600 MB/s

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Duo E6540  vs
Celeron E3400 
Clock speed 2.33 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 Yes 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 0.98 pt/W 1.64 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 52.81W

details

Core2 Duo E6540  vs
Celeron E3400 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 4 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 7 13
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.5V 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 72°C Unknown - 74.1°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.41 GHz 3.85 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 2.33 GHz 2.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.41 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 1,333 MHz 800 MHz
Intel Core2 Duo E6540
Report a correction
Intel Celeron E3400
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus