Intel Core2 Duo E8300 vs AMD Geode NX 1750 |
Released April, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8300
- 2.83 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo E8300
 | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm |
| | Much higher clock speed 2.83 GHz | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
VS
Released May, 2004
AMD Geode NX 1750
- 1.4 GHz
- Single core
Reasons to buy the AMD Geode NX 1750
| | Much lower typical power consumption 20.31W | | Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature 95 °C |
| | Much lower annual home energy cost 6.02 $/year | | Much lower annual commercial energy cost 21.9 $/year |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 0.25 MB | 24x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 130 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much higher clock speed | 2.83 GHz | vs | 1.4 GHz | More than 2x higher clock speed | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 12x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.11 GHz | vs | 1.92 GHz | Around 2.2x better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Newer | Apr, 2008 | vs | May, 2004 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.41 GHz | vs | 1.4 GHz | Around 3.2x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Better PassMark score | 1,999 | vs | 291 | More than 6.8x better PassMark score | |||
| More cores | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Better performance per watt | 1.87 pt/W | vs | 0.48 pt/W | Around 4x better performance per watt | |||
| |||||||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 20.31W | vs | 52.81W | 2.6x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly higher Maximum operating temperature | 95 °C | vs | 72.4 °C | More than 30% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 6.02 $/year | vs | 15.66 $/year | 2.6x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 21.9 $/year | vs | 56.94 $/year | 2.6x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8300 vs Geode NX 1750
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo E8300 | vs | Geode NX 1750 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.83 GHz | 1.4 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Single core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| 462 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | No | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| 3DNow! | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 266 MHz | |
details | Core2 Duo E8300 | vs | Geode NX 1750 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 2 | 1 | |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 0.25 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 130 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.4°C | Unknown - 95°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.11 GHz | 1.92 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.41 GHz | 1.4 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.11 GHz | 1.92 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 65W | 25W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 6.02 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 21.9 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 1.87 pt/W | 0.48 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 20.31W | |
 Intel Core2 Duo E8300  Report a correction |  AMD Geode NX 1750 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| E8300 vs E7500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| E8300 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| E8300 vs E8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $125 | ||
| E8300 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $64 | ||
| E8300 vs E5700 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $187 | ||
| E8300 vs E6750 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $287 | ||
| E8300 vs Q9550 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $305 | $300 | |
| W3520 vs 2500 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $272 | $350 | |
| 4790K vs 6700K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6200U vs 7th Gen A9-9410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $275 | $161 | |
| 4005U vs N3540 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| 3470 vs 5200 | ||
