Winner
Intel Core2 Duo T9400
CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo T9400 based on its .
See full details Intel Core2 Duo T9400 vs P8400 |
Released July, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo T9400
- 2.53 GHz
- Dual core
6.2 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the Intel Core2 Duo T9400
 | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
| | Higher clock speed 2.53 GHz |
VS
Released July, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo P8400
- 2.26 GHz
- Dual core
6.1 Out of 10
Reasons to buy the P8400
| | Lower typical power consumption 20.31W | | Better performance per dollar 1.37 pt/$ |
| | Slightly better geekbench (64-bit) score 3,650 | | Lower annual home energy cost 6.02 $/year |
CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of T9400 vs P8400
Performance | |
Benchmark performance using all cores | |
| 3DMark06 (CPU), Passmark, GeekBench (32-bit) and GeekBench (64-bit) | |
Single-core Performance | |
Individual core benchmark performance | |
| Passmark (Single Core) | |
Power Consumption | |
How much power does the processor require? | |
| TDP | |
Features | |
How does CPUBoss rank the features of each product? | |
| Features and specifications that differ between products | |
CPUBoss Score | |
Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Features | |
 | Winner |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Intel Core2 Duo T9400CPUBoss Winner |  | |
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 3 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 1.5 MB/core | 2x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Higher clock speed | 2.53 GHz | vs | 2.26 GHz | More than 10% higher clock speed | |||
| |||||||
| Lower typical power consumption | 20.31W | vs | 28.44W | Around 30% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Better performance per dollar | 1.37 pt/$ | vs | 0.99 pt/$ | Around 40% better performance per dollar | |||
| Slightly better geekbench (64-bit) score | 3,650 | vs | 2,685 | More than 35% better geekbench (64-bit) score | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 6.02 $/year | vs | 8.43 $/year | Around 30% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of Core2 Duo T9400 vs P8400
GeekBench (32-bit)
GeekBench (64-bit)
GeekBench
3D Mark 06 (CPU)
Passmark
Passmark (Single Core)
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Core2 Duo T9400 | vs | P8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 2.53 GHz | 2.26 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| 478 | |||
| P | |||
| 479 | |||
| Is hyperthreaded | No | No | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | Yes | Yes | |
| 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 | 35W | 25W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 8.43 $/year | 6.02 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 9.4 pt/W | 11.54 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 28.44W | 20.31W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 1,066 MHz | 1,066 MHz | |
details | Core2 Duo T9400 | vs | P8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 | 410,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock multiplier | 9 | 8 | |
| Voltage range | 1.05 - 1.16V | 1.05 - 1.15V | |
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 | |
 Intel Core2 Duo T9400  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo P8400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $209 | $331 | |
| P8700 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $211 | $331 | |
| P8600 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $222 | $331 | |
| 520M vs T9400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $331 | |
| 3220 vs T9400 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $211 | |
| 3210M vs P8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $211 | ||
| 800 vs P8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $225 | $211 | |
| 350M vs P8400 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $340 | ||
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $340 | $240 | |
| 4770K vs 4670K | ||
 | VS | |
| $332 | $340 | |
| 4820k vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $240 | $200 | |
| 4670K vs 8350 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $393 | $281 | |
| 4500U vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $378 | $378 | |
| 4700MQ vs 4700HQ | ||
| | VS |  |
| $281 | $225 | |
| 4200U vs 3230M | ||
