Intel Itanium 9030 vs AMD E2 3200 |
Released July, 2006
Intel Itanium 9030
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9030
 | Much more l2 cache 8 MB | | Much more l2 cache per core 4 MB/core |
| | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 4 | | Much more l3 cache per core 4 MB/core |
VS
Released November, 2019
AMD E2 3200
- 2.4 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the AMD E2 3200
| | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | | Significantly higher clock speed 2.4 GHz |
| | Has a built-in GPU Yes | | Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 8 MB | vs | 1 MB | 8x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Much more l2 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 8x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 4 | vs | 1 | 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
| Much more l3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 16x more l3 cache per core | |||
| More l3 cache | 8 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 16x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
| Higher Maximum operating temperature | 76 °C | vs | 71.5 °C | More than 5% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
| |||||||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 32 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Significantly higher clock speed | 2.4 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 50% higher clock speed | |||
| Has a built-in GPU | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required | |||
| 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 | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | vs | No | Somewhat common; Prevents a common class of security exploits | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 84.5W | Around 40% lower typical power consumption | |||
| Newer | Nov, 2019 | vs | Jul, 2006 | Release date over 13 years later | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 25.05 $/year | Around 40% lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 91.1 $/year | Around 40% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9030 vs E2 3200
clock speed
L2 cache
L3 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9030 | vs | E2 3200 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 2.4 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | No | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | No | Yes | |
integrated graphics | |||
| GPU | None | GPU | |
| Label | N/A | AMD Radeon HD 6370D | |
memory controller | |||
| Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in | |
details | Itanium 9030 | vs | E2 3200 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 2 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 8 MB | 1 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 4 MB/core | 0.5 MB/core | |
| L3 cache | 8 MB | 0.5 MB | |
| L3 cache per core | 4 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 90 nm | 32 nm | |
| Transistor count | 1,720,000,000 | 1,178,000,000 | |
| Max CPUs | 4 | 1 | |
| Voltage range | 1.09 - 1.25V | 0.91 - 1.41V | |
| Operating temperature | Unknown - 76°C | Unknown - 71.5°C | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 104W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 91.1 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 84.5W | 52.81W | |
 Intel Itanium 9030  Report a correction |  AMD E2 3200 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $135 | ||
| 2120 vs 3200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | ||
| 3220 vs 3200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $100 | ||
| 3850 vs 3200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $179 | ||
| E8400 vs 3200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $50 | ||
| 3400 vs 3200 | ||
 | VS | |
| 250 vs 3200 | ||
 | VS | |
| $45 | ||
| 3300 vs 3200 | ||
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 | ||
