CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E8400 vs 3000+ 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

3.3

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400  based on its performance and single-core performance.

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 E8400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E8400

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 6 MB vs 0.13 MB 48x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 1.8 GHz More than 65% higher clock speed
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 90 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better PassMark score 2,160 vs 407 More than 5.2x better PassMark score
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,251 vs 513 Around 2.5x better PassMark (Single core) score
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
More threads 2 vs 1 Twice as many threads
Much better performance per watt 1.83 pt/W vs 0.6 pt/W More than 3x better performance per watt
Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 0.13 MB/core 24x more l2 cache per core
Has a NX bit Yes vs No Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.4 °C vs 70 °C Around 5% higher Maximum operating temperature
Front view of AMD Sempron 3000+

Reasons to consider the
AMD Sempron 3000+

Report a correction
Slightly lower typical power consumption 50.38W vs 52.81W Around 5% lower typical power consumption
Slightly lower annual commercial energy cost 54.31 $/year vs 56.94 $/year Around 5% lower annual commercial energy cost
Slightly lower annual home energy cost 14.94 $/year vs 15.66 $/year Around 5% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs Sempron 3000+

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Sempron 3000+ 
Clock speed 3 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 775
754

features

Has a NX bit Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
SSE4.1
3DNow!
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 65W 62W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 14.94 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 54.31 $/year
Performance per watt 1.83 pt/W 0.6 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 50.38W

details

Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Sempron 3000+ 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 6 MB 0.13 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.13 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 90 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.4°C Unknown - 70°C

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

Clock speed 1,333 MHz 200 MHz
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Report a correction
AMD Sempron 3000+
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus