Intel Core2 Duo T6400 vs AMD Opteron 170 |
Released January, 2009
Intel Core2 Duo T6400
- 2 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo T6400
 | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm | | Much lower typical power consumption 28.44W |
| | Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,519 | | Significantly better PassMark score 5,563 |
VS
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core2 Duo T6400CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much lower typical power consumption | 28.44W | vs | 89.38W | 3.1x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,519 | vs | 620 | Around 2.5x better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 5,563 | vs | 1,097 | More than 5x better PassMark score | |||
| Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.13 GHz | vs | 2.91 GHz | More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
| Significantly better performance per watt | 3.85 pt/W | vs | 0.52 pt/W | Around 7.5x better performance per watt | |||
| Newer | Jan, 2009 | vs | Aug, 2005 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.91 GHz | vs | 2 GHz | Around 2.5x better overclocked clock speed (Water) | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | vs | 26.5 $/year | 3.1x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | vs | 96.36 $/year | 3.1x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
| |||||||
| CPUBoss is not aware of any important advantages of the AMD Opteron 170 vs the Intel Core2 Duo T6400. | |||||||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo T6400 vs Opteron 170
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo T6400 | vs | Opteron 170 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2 GHz | 2 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| 478 | |||
| 939 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| SSE4.1 | |||
| 3DNow! | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
details | Core2 Duo T6400 | vs | Opteron 170 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 2 MB | 2 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 1 MB/core | 1 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 45 nm | 90 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 10 | 10 | |
| Voltage range | 1 - 1.25V | 1.3 - UnknownV | |
overclocking | |||
| Overclocked clock speed | 4.13 GHz | 2.91 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.91 GHz | 2 GHz | |
| Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 4.13 GHz | 2.91 GHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 35W | 110W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 26.5 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | 96.36 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 3.85 pt/W | 0.52 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 89.38W | |
 Intel Core2 Duo T6400  Report a correction |  AMD Opteron 170 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| Intel Core i5 2500 vs Xeon W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A8 6410 vs Intel Core i5 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| AMD A9 7th Gen A9-9410 vs Intel Core i5 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron 847 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| Intel Pentium N3540 vs Core i3 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $180 | ||
| AMD A6 5200 vs Intel Core i5 3470 | ||
