CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of SU9300 vs Z2760

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

3DMark06 (CPU)

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Cinebench R11.5 (1-core), Cinebench R10 32-bit (1-core) and 2 more

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Features

How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product?

Features and specifications that differ between products

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Features

Winner
Intel Atom Z2760 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Atom Z2760  based on its .

See full details

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
Front view of Intel Atom Z2760

Intel Atom Z2760

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Core2 Duo SU9300

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo SU9300

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 3 MB vs 1 MB 3x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
More advanced architecture x86-64 vs x86 A 64-bit architecture allows more RAM to be installed and accessed by the processor
Has vitualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Much more l2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core vs 0.5 MB/core 3x more l2 cache per core
Front view of Intel Atom Z2760

Reasons to consider the
Intel Atom Z2760

Report a correction
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
Higher clock speed 1.8 GHz vs 1.2 GHz More than 50% higher clock speed
Newer manufacturing process 32 nms vs 45 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per watt 66.98 pt/W vs 14.97 pt/W Around 4.5x better performance per watt
Much better performance per dollar 3.27 pt/$ vs 0.58 pt/$ More than 5.5x better performance per dollar
More threads 4 vs 2 Twice as many threads
Marginally newer Sep, 2012 vs Aug, 2008 Release date over 4 years later
Lower typical power consumption 1.63W vs 8.13W 5x lower typical power consumption
Lower annual home energy cost 0.48 $/year vs 2.41 $/year 5x lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo SU9300 vs Atom Z2760

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Core2 Duo SU9300  vs
Atom Z2760 
Clock speed 1.2 GHz 1.8 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Is hyperthreaded No Yes

features

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

power consumption

TDP 10W 2W
Annual home energy cost 2.41 $/year 0.48 $/year
Performance per watt 14.97 pt/W 66.98 pt/W
Typical power consumption 8.13W 1.63W

details

Core2 Duo SU9300  vs
Atom Z2760 
Architecture x86-64 x86
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 3 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 1.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 45 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1

gpu

GPU None GPU
Label N/A Integrated
GPU clock speed N/A 533 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Intel Core2 Duo SU9300
Report a correction
Intel Atom Z2760
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus