Intel Core2 Duo T7500 vs AMD E 450 |
Released July, 2006
Intel Core2 Duo T7500
- 2.2 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo T7500
 | Much more l2 cache 4 MB | | Higher clock speed 2.2 GHz |
| | Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core | | Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,851 |
VS
Released August, 2011
AMD E 450
- 1.65 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the AMD E 450
| | Much newer manufacturing process 40 nm | | Has a built-in GPU Yes |
| | Lower typical power consumption 14.63W | | Better CompuBench 1.5 ocean surface simulation score 60.83 fps |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core2 Duo T7500CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 4 MB | vs | 1 MB | 4x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Higher clock speed | 2.2 GHz | vs | 1.65 GHz | Around 35% higher clock speed | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much better PassMark (Single core) score | 1,851 | vs | 431 | More than 4.2x better PassMark (Single core) score | |||
| Significantly better PassMark score | 7,135 | vs | 770 | More than 9.2x better PassMark score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 4.11 pt/W | vs | 2.98 pt/W | Around 40% better performance per watt | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 40 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| Lower typical power consumption | 14.63W | vs | 28.44W | Around 50% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Better CompuBench 1.5 ocean surface simulation score | 60.83 fps | vs | 15.23 fps | Around 4x better CompuBench 1.5 ocean surface simulation score | |||
| Newer | Aug, 2011 | vs | Jul, 2006 | Release date over 5 years later | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 4.34 $/year | vs | 8.43 $/year | Around 50% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 15.77 $/year | vs | 30.66 $/year | Around 50% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo T7500 vs E 450
CompuBench 1.5 (Ocean surface simulation) Data courtesy CompuBench
GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
PassMark Data courtesy Passmark
PassMark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo T7500 | vs | E 450 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.2 GHz | 1.65 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| P | |||
| 479 | |||
| Super 7 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| SSE4a | |||
| SSE2 | |||
| MMX | |||
| SSE3 | |||
| SSE | |||
| AMD64 | |||
| AMD-V | |||
| Supplemental SSE3 | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
bus | |||
| Clock speed | 800 MHz | 100 MHz | |
details | Core2 Duo T7500 | vs | E 450 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 4 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 40 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 11 | 25 | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | Radeon™ HD 6320 | |
| Latest DirectX | N/A | 11.0 | |
| GPU clock speed | N/A | 508 MHz | |
| Turbo clock speed | N/A | 600 MHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 35W | 18W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 4.34 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 30.66 $/year | 15.77 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 4.11 pt/W | 2.98 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 14.63W | |
 Intel Core2 Duo T7500  Report a correction |  AMD E 450 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $225 | ||
| 450 vs 3217U | ||
| | VS |  |
| $99 | ||
| 450 vs 2450M | ||
| | VS |  |
| 450 vs 350 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $236 | $236 | |
| T7500 vs T8300 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $236 | $197 | |
| T7500 vs T8100 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $236 | ||
| T7500 vs T4500 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $236 | $309 | |
| T7500 vs T9300 | ||
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 | |
| $134 | $225 | |
| 847 vs 3217U | ||
 | VS | |
| $250 | $350 | |
| 6600K vs 6700K | ||
