Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E8400 based on its .
See full details Intel Core2 Duo E8400 vs E7500 |
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
6.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo E8400
 | Significantly more l2 cache 6 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
| | Significantly better SysMark 2007 overall score 191 | | 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, 2009
Intel Core2 Duo E7500
- 2.93 GHz
- Dual core
6.7 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the E7500
| | Much better performance per dollar 17.77 pt/$ | | Higher Maximum Operating Temperature 74.1 °C |
| | Marginally newer Jan, 2009 |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E8400 vs E7500
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit, Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and Passmark (Single Core) | |
Overclocking | |
How much speed can you get out of the processor? | |
| Passmark (Overclocked), Unlocked, Maximum Overclocked Clock Speed (Air) and 2 more | |
Value | |
Are you paying a premium for performance? | |
| Performance Per Dollar | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Overclocking and Value | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core2 Duo E8400CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Significantly more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 3 MB | 2x 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 | 1.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Significantly better SysMark 2007 overall score | 191 | vs | 173 | More than 10% better SysMark 2007 overall score | |||
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing | |||
| Significantly better SysMark 2007 productivity score | 201 | vs | 169 | Around 20% better SysMark 2007 productivity score | |||
| Better SysMark 2007 video creation score | 194 | vs | 187 | Around 5% better SysMark 2007 video creation score | |||
| Better SysMark 2007 3D score | 176 | vs | 166 | More than 5% better SysMark 2007 3D score | |||
| |||||||
| Much better performance per dollar | 17.77 pt/$ | vs | 14.03 pt/$ | More than 25% better performance per dollar | |||
| Higher Maximum Operating Temperature | 74.1 °C | vs | 72.4 °C | Almost the same | |||
| Marginally newer | Jan, 2009 | vs | Jan, 2008 | Release date a year later | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo E8400 vs E7500
GeekBench (32-bit)
3D Mark 11 (Physics)
Cinebench R10 32-Bit
Cinebench R10 32-Bit (Single Core)
sysmark 2007 (overall)
Passmark
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | E7500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 3 GHz | 2.93 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | No | |
| Has vitualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction-set-extensions | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| 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 | 6.04 pt/W | 6.01 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 52.81W | |
details | Core2 Duo E8400 | vs | E7500 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 6 MB | 3 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | 1.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nms | 45 nms | |
| Transistor count | 410,000,000 | 228,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 11 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 72.4°C | Unknown - 74.1°C | |
gpu | |||
| 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 | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,333 MHz | 1,066 MHz | |
 Intel Core2 Duo E8400  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo E7500 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $28 | $68 | |
| E8400 vs Q6600 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $28 | $125 | |
| E8400 vs 3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $28 | $88 | |
| E8400 vs Q8400 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $28 | $230 | |
| E8400 vs 3570K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $28 | $70 | |
| E8400 vs G3258 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $28 | $60 | |
| E8400 vs G3220 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $28 | $191 | |
| E8400 vs Q9550 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $313 | $329 | |
| 4770K vs 9590 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $313 | $195 | |
| 4770K vs 4790 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $313 | $340 | |
| 4770K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | $235 | |
| 8350 vs 4670K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | ||
| 5750M vs 4700MQ | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | $393 | |
| 4200U vs 4500U | ||
| | VS | |
| $235 | $313 | |
| 4670K vs 4770K | ||
