Intel E3930 vs Atom E3825 |
Released October, 2016
Intel E3930
- 1.3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel E3930
 | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes | | Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm |
| | More number of displays supported 3 | | Newer Oct, 2016 |
VS
Released October, 2013
Intel Atom E3825
- 1.33 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Atom E3825
| | Higher GPU clock speed 533 MHz | | Higher Maximum operating temperature 110 °C |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Allows for maximum performance when needed, while conserving power and minimizing heat production when not needed | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 14 nm | vs | 22 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| More number of displays supported | 3 | vs | 2 | 1 more number of displays supported | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2016 | vs | Oct, 2013 | Release date over 3 years later | |||
| Better geekbench 3 single core score | 835 | vs | 586 | More than 40% better geekbench 3 single core score | |||
| Better performance per watt | 5.48 pt/W | vs | 4.24 pt/W | Around 30% better performance per watt | |||
| Better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | 1,531.5 | vs | 1,018 | More than 50% better geekbench 3 Multi-Core score | |||
| |||||||
| Higher GPU clock speed | 533 MHz | vs | 400 MHz | Around 35% higher GPU clock speed | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 110 °C | vs | 103 °C | More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Report a correction
Benchmarks Real world tests of E3930 vs Atom E3825
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
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | E3930 | vs | Atom E3825 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.3 GHz | 1.33 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| AES | |||
| EM64T | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | No | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| DDR3L-1066 | |||
| Channels | Quad Channel | Single Channel | |
| Supports ECC | Yes | Yes | |
| Maximum bandwidth | 25,600 MB/s | 6,400 MB/s | |
| Maximum memory size | 8,192 MB | 8,192 MB | |
details | E3930 | vs | Atom E3825 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| Manufacture process | 14 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 103°C | -40 - 110°C | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | GPU | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 500 | HD | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | 2 | |
| GPU clock speed | 400 MHz | 533 MHz | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 6.5W | 6W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 1.57 $/year | 1.45 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 5.69 $/year | 5.26 $/year | |
| Performance per watt | 5.48 pt/W | 4.24 pt/W | |
| Typical power consumption | 5.28W | 4.88W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
 Intel E3930  Report a correction |  Intel Atom E3825 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $82 | $34 | |
| J1900 vs E3825 | ||
 | VS | |
| $52 | $34 | |
| E3845 vs E3825 | ||
 | VS | |
| $63 | $34 | |
| D525 vs E3825 | ||
 | VS | |
| $163 | $34 | |
| N2930 vs E3825 | ||
 | VS | |
| $34 | ||
| N3350 vs E3825 | ||
| | VS |  |
| $82 | ||
| J1900 vs E3930 | ||
 | VS | |
| E3940 vs E3930 | ||
Popular Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $300 | $305 | |
| 2500 vs W3520 | ||
 | VS |  |
| $350 | $272 | |
| 6700K vs 4790K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 6410 vs 4200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $281 | ||
| 7th Gen A9-9410 vs 6200U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| N3540 vs 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $230 | $248 | |
| 9590 vs 4770K | ||
| | VS |  |
| $350 | $250 | |
| 6700K vs 6600K | ||
