0 Comments
| Intel Core2 Duo E8400 vs E4600 |
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo E8400
![]() | Much higher clock speed 3 GHz | ![]() | Much better PassMark score 2,160 |
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm | ![]() | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.22 GHz |
VS
Released October, 2007
Intel Core2 Duo E4600
- 2.4 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the E4600
![]() | Higher Maximum operating temperature 73.3 °C |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 2.4 GHz | More than 25% higher clock speed | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much better PassMark score | 2,160 | vs | 1,384 | More than 55% better PassMark score | |||
Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | vs | 3.17 GHz | Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Has virtualization support | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines | |||
Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | vs | 3.61 GHz | More than 15% better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| |||||||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 73.3 °C | vs | 72.4 °C | Almost the same |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs E4600
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
2,982
Core2 Duo E4600
2,274
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
1,625
Core2 Duo E4600
1,242
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
128,000 MB/s
Core2 Duo E4600
102,150 MB/s
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
2,826
Core2 Duo E4600
2,148
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Core2 Duo E8400
3,092
Core2 Duo E4600
3,640
GeekBench
Core2 Duo E8400
4,794
Core2 Duo E4600
3,640
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
Core2 Duo E8400
2,160
Core2 Duo E4600
1,384
PassMark (Single Core)
Core2 Duo E8400
1,251
Core2 Duo E4600
885
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | E4600 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 775 | |||
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 | Yes | |
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 | 1.83 pt/W | 1.49 pt/W | |
Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 800 MHz |
details | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | E4600 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 6 MB | 2 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 45 nm | 65 nm | |
Transistor count | 410,000,000 | 167,000,000 | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 9 | 12 | |
Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.36V | 0.85 - 1.5V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.4°C | Unknown - 73.3°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclocked clock speed | 4.22 GHz | 3.17 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.23 GHz | 3.61 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.22 GHz | 3.17 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 ![]() | Intel Core2 Duo E4600 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | ||
E8400 vs Q6600 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $125 | |
E8400 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $125 | |
E8400 vs E7500 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $179 | |
E8400 vs Q8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $64 | |
E8400 vs E5700 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $200 | |
E8400 vs Q9400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$179 | $200 | |
E8400 vs E8500 | ||
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 | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
6600K vs 6700K | ||