CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E8400 vs 3210M


Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?



Performance Per Dollar

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!

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 per core 3 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 6x more l2 cache per core
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
Higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.5 GHz 20% higher clock speed
Much better performance per dollar 20.87 pt/$ vs 3.11 pt/$ Around 6.8x better performance per dollar
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Front view of Intel Core i5 3210M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i5 3210M

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 22 nms vs 45 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature 105 °C vs 72.4 °C More than 45% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Marginally newer Jun, 2012 vs Jan, 2008 Release date over 4 years later
Lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 52.81W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Better PassMark (Single core) score 1,524 vs 1,257 More than 20% better PassMark (Single core) score
Better PassMark score 3,823 vs 2,172 More than 75% better PassMark score
Better geekbench (64-bit) score 5,335 vs 3,119 More than 70% better geekbench (64-bit) score
Better performance per watt 13.8 pt/W vs 5.78 pt/W Around 2.5x better performance per watt
Slightly better 3DMark11 physics score 3,130 vs 2,310 More than 35% better 3DMark11 physics score
Lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs Core i5 3210M


3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Core2 Duo E8400 Core i5 3210M @ community.futuremark.com


Core2 Duo E8400 Core i5 3210M @ cpubenchmark.net

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs


Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Core i5 3210M 
Clock speed 3 GHz 2.5 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775
rPGA 988B
Is hyperthreaded No Yes


Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing Yes No
Has virtualization support Yes Yes
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

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 5.78 pt/W 13.8 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 28.44W


Core2 Duo E8400  vs
Core i5 3210M 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 6 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 3 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nms 22 nms
Transistor count 410,000,000 1,400,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 25
Operating temperature Unknown - 72.4°C Unknown - 105°C


Label N/A HD 4000
Latest DirectX N/A 11.0
Number of displays supported N/A 3
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,100 MHz


Architecture FSB DMI 2.0
Number of links 1 1
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
Report a correction
Intel Core i5 3210M
Report a correction

Read more


comments powered by Disqus