CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E8400 vs 420 among all CPUs

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

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

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?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

No winner declared

Too close to call

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 1 MB 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Much higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 1.6 GHz More than 85% higher clock speed
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,826 vs 739 More than 3.8x 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 more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 3x more l2 cache per core
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz vs 2.02 GHz More than 2x better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,251 vs 544 More than 2.2x better PassMark (Single core) score
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Higher Maximum operating temperature 72.4 °C vs 60.4 °C Around 20% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better PassMark score 2,160 vs 452 More than 4.8x better PassMark score
More cores 2 vs 1 Twice as many cores; run more applications at once
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.23 GHz vs 3.38 GHz More than 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Newer Jan, 2008 vs Apr, 2007 Release date 9 months later
Front view of Intel Celeron M 420

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron M 420

Report a correction
Much better performance per dollar 1.57 pt/$ vs 0.01 pt/$ Around 132.8x better performance per dollar
Significantly lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 52.81W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs Celeron M 420

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 E8400
128,000 MB/s
Celeron M 420
66,700 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Celeron M 420 
Clock speed 3 GHz 1.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Single core
Socket type
LGA 775
478

features

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

power consumption

TDP 65W 35W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 1.83 pt/W 1.57 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 28.44W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 1,333 MHz 800 MHz

details

Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Celeron M 420 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 1
L2 cache 6 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 410,000,000 105,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 8
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.36V 1 - 1.34V
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.4°C Unknown - 60.4°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.22 GHz 2.02 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.23 GHz 3.38 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz 2.02 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
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Report a correction
Intel Celeron M 420
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus