Winner
Intel Core i3 2120
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i3 2120 based on its .
See full details Intel Core2 Duo E8400 vs Core i3 2120 |
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
6.8 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo E8400
 | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
| | Much better performance per dollar 20.89 pt/$ | | Supports trusted computing Yes |
by Anthony-Garreffa (Sep, 2012)Your GPU setup is more than good enough to run Battlefield 3 at medium-to-high settings at 1920x1080, so I would suggest waiting and upgrading to an Ivy Bridge setup.
VS
Released January, 2011
Intel Core i3 2120
- 3.3 GHz
- Dual core
7.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Core i3 2120
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Is hyperthreaded Yes |
| | Newer manufacturing process 32 nms | | Higher clock speed 3.3 GHz |
by Legit Reviews (Jul, 2011)Getting the base clock up to 104MHz was enough to boost the CPU core clock speed by nearly 130MHz and running the processor at 3.43GHz did bring a nice performance boost.
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E8400 vs 2120
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| overclock popularity | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
 |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
| |  | Intel Core i3 2120CPUBoss Winner |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 12x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 12x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better performance per dollar | 20.89 pt/$ | vs | 6.55 pt/$ | Around 3.2x better performance per dollar | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Higher Maximum Operating Temperature | 72.4 °C | vs | 69.1 °C | Around 5% higher Maximum Operating Temperature | |||
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core | |||
| Newer manufacturing process | 32 nms | vs | 45 nms | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Higher clock speed | 3.3 GHz | vs | 3 GHz | Around 10% higher clock speed | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| Better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,680 | vs | 1,257 | Around 35% better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Newer | Jan, 2011 | vs | Jan, 2008 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Better PassMark score | 3,869 | vs | 2,174 | Around 80% better PassMark score | |||
| Better 3DMark11 physics score | 3,880 | vs | 2,310 | Around 70% better 3DMark11 physics score | |||
| Better geekbench (64-bit) score | 5,478 | vs | 3,131 | Around 75% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 8.77 pt/W | vs | 5.78 pt/W | More than 50% better performance per watt | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs Core i3 2120
GeekBench (32-bit)
GeekBench (64-bit)
GeekBench
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Passmark
Passmark (Single Core)
Reviews Word on the street
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | Core i3 2120 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.3 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| LGA 1155 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | Yes | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.2 | |||
| AVX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| SSE4 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
gpu | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 2000 | |
| Number of displays supported | N/A | 2 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 850 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,100 MHz | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
details | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | Core i3 2120 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 4 | |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 0.5 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nms | 32 nms | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 33 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.4°C | Unknown - 69.1°C | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclock popularity | 125 | 22 | |
| Overclock review score | 4.5 | 1 | |
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 | 5.78 pt/W | 8.77 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 52.81W | |
 Intel Core2 Duo E8400  Report a correction |  Intel Core i3 2120 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $18 | $112 | |
| E8400 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $18 | $48 | |
| E8400 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $18 | $13 | |
| E8400 vs E7500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $18 | $64 | |
| E8400 vs Q8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $18 | $70 | |
| E8400 vs G3258 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $18 | $225 | |
| E8400 vs 3570K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $127 | ||
| 2120 vs 1200 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $1,428 | ||
| 4200U vs 6410 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $338 | $275 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $327 | $366 | |
| 4790K vs 5820K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $327 | $235 | |
| 4790K vs 4690K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $85 | $161 | |
| 3110M vs N3530 | ||
| | VS | |
| $338 | $327 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $327 | ||
| 3217U vs N2830 | ||
