Intel E3950 vs Atom E3805 |
Released October, 2016
Intel E3950
- 1.6 GHz
- Quad core
Reasons to buy the Intel E3950
 | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Significantly newer manufacturing process 14 nm |
| | Higher clock speed 1.6 GHz | | More cores 4 |
VS
Released October, 2014
Intel Atom E3805
- 1.33 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Atom E3805
| | Lower typical power consumption 2.44W | | Lower annual home energy cost 0.72 $/year |
| | Lower annual commercial energy cost 2.63 $/year |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Significantly newer manufacturing process | 14 nm | vs | 22 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Higher clock speed | 1.6 GHz | vs | 1.33 GHz | More than 20% higher clock speed | |||
| More cores | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
| Newer | Oct, 2016 | vs | Oct, 2014 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| |||||||
| Lower typical power consumption | 2.44W | vs | 9.75W | 4x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Lower annual home energy cost | 0.72 $/year | vs | 2.89 $/year | 4x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Lower annual commercial energy cost | 2.63 $/year | vs | 10.51 $/year | 4x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the E3950 vs Atom E3805
clock speed
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | E3950 | vs | Atom E3805 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 1.33 GHz | |
| Cores | Quad core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Instruction set extensions | |||
| AES | |||
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
| Memory type | |||
| DDR3 | |||
| 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 | E3950 | vs | Atom E3805 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| Manufacture process | 14 nm | 22 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | GPU | None | |
| Label | Intel® HD Graphics 505 | N/A | |
| Number of displays supported | 3 | N/A | |
| GPU clock speed | 500 MHz | N/A | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 12W | 3W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 2.89 $/year | 0.72 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 10.51 $/year | 2.63 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 9.75W | 2.44W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
 Intel E3950  Report a correction |  Intel Atom E3805 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 |  |
| $161 | $275 | |
| Intel Pentium N3540 vs Core i3 4005U | ||
 | VS |  |
| $230 | $248 | |
| AMD FX 9590 vs Intel Core i7 4770K | ||
 | VS |  |
| $225 | $134 | |
| Intel Core i3 3217U vs Celeron 847 | ||
