Intel Itanium 9310 vs Core2 Duo E8400 |
Released February, 2010
Intel Itanium 9310
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Itanium 9310
 | Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration 8 | | Newer Feb, 2010 |
| | More threads 4 |
VS
Released January, 2008
Intel Core2 Duo E8400
- 3 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Core2 Duo E8400
| | Much more l2 cache 6 MB | | Much higher clock speed 3 GHz |
| | Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm | | Much more l2 cache per core 3 MB/core |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
| Supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | 8 | vs | 1 | 7 supports more CPUs in SMP configuration | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Newer | Feb, 2010 | vs | Jan, 2008 | Release date over 2 years later | |||
| More threads | 4 | vs | 2 | Twice as many threads | |||
| |||||||
| Much more l2 cache | 6 MB | vs | 1 MB | 6x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
| Much higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 85% higher clock speed | |||
| Much newer manufacturing process | 45 nm | vs | 65 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
| Much more l2 cache per core | 3 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 6x more l2 cache per core | |||
| Much lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 105.63W | 2x lower typical power consumption | |||
| Much lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 31.32 $/year | 2x lower annual home energy cost | |||
| Much lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 113.88 $/year | 2x lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Report a correction
Features Key features of the Itanium 9310 vs Core2 Duo E8400
clock speed
L2 cache
TDP
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Itanium 9310 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3 GHz | |
| Cores | Dual core | Dual core | |
| Socket type | |||
| LGA 1248 | |||
| LGA 775 | |||
features | |||
| Has a NX bit | Yes | Yes | |
| Has virtualization support | Yes | Yes | |
| Supports dynamic frequency scaling | Yes | Yes | |
power consumption | |||
| TDP | 130W | 65W | |
| Annual home energy cost | 31.32 $/year | 15.66 $/year | |
| Annual commercial energy cost | 113.88 $/year | 56.94 $/year | |
| Typical power consumption | 105.63W | 52.81W | |
bus | |||
| Architecture | QPI | FSB | |
| Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
| Clock speed | 2,400 MHz | 1,333 MHz | |
details | Itanium 9310 | vs | Core2 Duo E8400 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
| Threads | 4 | 2 | |
| L2 cache | 1 MB | 6 MB | |
| L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 3 MB/core | |
| Manufacture process | 65 nm | 45 nm | |
| Max CPUs | 8 | 1 | |
integrated graphics | |||
| 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 Itanium 9310  Report a correction |  Intel Core2 Duo E8400 Report a correction |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
 | VS |  |
| $179 | ||
| Intel Core2 Quad Q6600 vs Duo E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $179 | |
| Intel Core i3 3220 vs Core2 Duo E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $125 | $179 | |
| Intel Core2 Duo E7500 vs E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $179 | $179 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q8400 vs Duo E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $64 | $179 | |
| Intel Pentium E5700 vs Core2 Duo E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $200 | $179 | |
| Intel Core2 Quad Q9400 vs Duo E8400 | ||
 | VS | |
| $200 | $179 | |
| Intel Core2 Duo E8500 vs E8400 | ||
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 |  |
| $350 | $250 | |
| Intel Core i7 6700K vs i5 6600K | ||
