0 Comments
| Intel Itanium 9050 vs Core i3 2100 |
Released July, 2006
Intel Itanium 9050
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9050
![]() | Much more l2 cache 24 MB | ![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 12 MB/core |
![]() | Much more l3 cache per core 12 MB/core | ![]() | Much more l3 cache 24 MB |
VS
Released January, 2011
Intel Core i3 2100
- 3.1 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Core i3 2100
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 32 nm | ![]() | Much higher clock speed 3.1 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 | 24 MB | vs | 0.5 MB | 48x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Much more l2 cache per core | 12 MB/core | vs | 0.25 MB/core | 48x more l2 cache per core | |||
Much more l3 cache per core | 12 MB/core | vs | 1.5 MB/core | 8x more l3 cache per core | |||
Much more l3 cache | 24 MB | vs | 3 MB | 8x more l3 cache; more data can be stored in the l3 cache for quick access later | |||
Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 4 | vs | 1 | 3 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
Lower typical power consumption | 84.5W | vs | 98.28W | Around 15% lower typical power consumption | |||
Much lower annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | vs | 37.88 $/year | Around 35% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Higher Maximum operating temperature | 76 °C | vs | 69.1 °C | Around 10% 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 | |||
Much higher clock speed | 3.1 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | Around 95% 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 | |||
Newer | Jan, 2011 | vs | Jul, 2006 | Release date over 4 years later |
Features Key features of the Itanium 9050 vs Core i3 2100
clock speed
Itanium 9050
1.6 GHz
Core i3 2100
3.1 GHz
L2 cache
Itanium 9050
24 MB
Core i3 2100
0.5 MB
L3 cache
Itanium 9050
24 MB
Core i3 2100
3 MB
TDP
Itanium 9050
104W
Core i3 2100
65W
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9050 | vs | Core i3 2100 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3.1 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
features | |||
Has a NX bit | No | Yes | |
Supports trusted computing | No | No | |
Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
Supports dynamic frequency scaling | No | Yes | |
integrated graphics | |||
GPU | None | GPU | |
Label | N/A | Intel® HD Graphics 2000 | |
Number of displays supported | N/A | 2 | |
GPU clock speed | N/A | 850 MHz | |
Turbo clock speed | N/A | 1,100 MHz | |
memory controller | |||
Memory controller | Built-in | Built-in |
details | Itanium 9050 | vs | Core i3 2100 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 4 | 4 | |
L2 cache | 24 MB | 0.5 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 12 MB/core | 0.25 MB/core | |
L3 cache | 24 MB | 3 MB | |
L3 cache per core | 12 MB/core | 1.5 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 90 nm | 32 nm | |
Max CPUs | 4 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 12 | 31 | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 76°C | Unknown - 69.1°C | |
power consumption | |||
TDP | 104W | 65W | |
Annual home energy cost | 25.05 $/year | 37.88 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 91.1 $/year | 93.47 $/year | |
Typical power consumption | 84.5W | 98.28W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | DMI | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 |
Intel Itanium 9050 ![]() | Intel Core i3 2100 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$150 | ||
2100 vs 1200 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$150 | $205 | |
2100 vs 2400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$150 | $179 | |
2100 vs E8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$150 | $76 | |
2100 vs G2030 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$150 | $125 | |
2100 vs 3220 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$150 | $70 | |
2100 vs G620 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$150 | ||
2100 vs Q6600 | ||
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 | ![]() |
$134 | $225 | |
847 vs 3217U | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$180 | ||
3470 vs 5200 | ||