CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of 925 vs E4500 among all CPUs

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

PCMark 8 Home 3.0 Accelerated, PassMark and 1 more

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

PassMark (Single Core), Geekbench 3 Single Core and 1 more

Integrated Graphics

Integrated GPU performance for graphics

Sky Diver and Cloud Gate

Integrated Graphics (OpenCL)

Integrated GPU performance for parallel computing

CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 4 more

Performance per Watt

How efficiently does the processor use electricity?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

4.9

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Core2 Duo E4500 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core2 Duo E4500  based on its performance, single-core performance, power consumption and value.

See full details

Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?

Thanks for adding your opinion. Follow us on Facebook to stay up to date with the latest news!
VS

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Pentium D 925

Reasons to consider the
Intel Pentium D 925

Report a correction
Much more l2 cache 4 MB vs 2 MB 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later
Significantly higher clock speed 3 GHz vs 2.2 GHz More than 35% higher clock speed
Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core vs 1 MB/core 2x more l2 cache per core
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.23 GHz vs 3.16 GHz Around 35% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Significantly better overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.4 GHz vs 3.52 GHz Around 25% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Core2 Duo E4500

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core2 Duo E4500

Report a correction
Significantly lower typical power consumption 52.81W vs 77.19W More than 30% lower typical power consumption
Higher Maximum operating temperature 73.3 °C vs 63.4 °C More than 15% higher Maximum operating temperature
Better performance per watt 1.38 pt/W vs 0.59 pt/W More than 2.2x better performance per watt
Significantly lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year vs 22.89 $/year More than 30% lower annual home energy cost
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year vs 83.22 $/year More than 30% lower annual commercial energy cost
Newer Jul, 2007 vs Jul, 2006 Release date 11 months later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium D 925 vs Core2 Duo E4500

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Pentium D 925  vs
Core2 Duo E4500 
Clock speed 3 GHz 2.2 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775
P

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No No
Has virtualization support No No
Instruction set extensions
SSE2
MMX
SSE3
SSE
Supplemental SSE3
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 95W 65W
Annual home energy cost 22.89 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 83.22 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 0.59 pt/W 1.38 pt/W
Typical power consumption 77.19W 52.81W

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 800 MHz 800 MHz

details

Pentium D 925  vs
Core2 Duo E4500 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 1 2
L2 cache 4 MB 2 MB
L2 cache per core 2 MB/core 1 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 65 nm
Transistor count 376,000,000 167,000,000
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 15 11
Voltage range 1.2 - 1.34V 0.85 - 1.5V
Operating temperature Unknown - 63.4°C Unknown - 73.3°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 4.23 GHz 3.16 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 4.4 GHz 3.52 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 4.23 GHz 3.16 GHz

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 Pentium D 925
Report a correction
Intel Core2 Duo E4500
Report a correction

Read more

Comments

comments powered by Disqus