CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E2140 vs 2620M

Performance

Benchmark performance using all cores

Passmark and GeekBench

Single-core Performance

Individual core benchmark performance

Passmark (Single Core)

Power Consumption

How much power does the processor require?

TDP

Value

Performance Per Dollar

CPUBoss Score

Performance, Single-core Performance, Power Consumption and Value

Winner
Intel Core i7 2620M 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Core i7 2620M  based on its .

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
Front view of Intel Core i7 2620M

Intel Core i7 2620M

CPUBoss Winner

Differences What are the advantages of each

Front view of Intel Pentium E2140

Reasons to consider the
Intel Pentium E2140

Report a correction
Better performance per dollar 2.81 pt/$ vs 1.88 pt/$ Around 50% better performance per dollar
Front view of Intel Core i7 2620M

Reasons to consider the
Intel Core i7 2620M

Report a correction
Newer manufacturing process 32 nms vs 65 nms A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Significantly higher clock speed 2.7 GHz vs 1.6 GHz Around 70% higher clock speed
Is hyperthreaded Yes vs No Somewhat common; Maximizes usage of each CPU core
Has a built-in GPU Yes vs No Somewhat common; A separate graphics adapter is not required
Has vitualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Significantly better PassMark (Single core) score 1,580 vs 585 Around 2.8x better PassMark (Single core) score
Significantly better 3DMark11 physics score 5,450 vs 1,070 More than 5x better 3DMark11 physics score
Much higher Maximum Operating Temperature 100 °C vs 61.4 °C Around 65% higher Maximum Operating Temperature
Supports trusted computing Yes vs No Somewhat common; Allows for safer, more reliable computing
Better PassMark score 3,882 vs 875 Around 4.5x better PassMark score
Significantly better performance per watt 18.61 pt/W vs 3 pt/W Around 6.2x better performance per watt
Better geekbench (32-bit) score 5,014 vs 1,443 Around 3.5x better geekbench (32-bit) score
Marginally newer Feb, 2011 vs Apr, 2007 Release date over 3 years later
Lower typical power consumption 28.44W vs 52.81W More than 45% lower typical power consumption
Lower annual commercial energy cost 30.66 $/year vs 56.94 $/year More than 45% lower annual commercial energy cost
Lower annual home energy cost 8.43 $/year vs 15.66 $/year More than 45% lower annual home energy cost

Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium E2140 vs Core i7 2620M

GeekBench

3D Mark 11 (Physics)

Pentium E2140 Core i7 2620M @ community.futuremark.com

Passmark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Pentium E2140  vs
Core i7 2620M 
Clock speed 1.6 GHz 2.7 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775
rPGA 988B
Is hyperthreaded No Yes

features

Has a NX bit Yes Yes
Supports trusted computing No Yes
Has vitualization support No Yes
Instruction-set-extensions
MMX
SSE
SSE4.2
AVX
SSE3
SSE2
Supplemental SSE3
SSE4.1
AES
Supports dynamic frequency scaling Yes Yes

power consumption

TDP 65W 35W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 8.43 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 30.66 $/year
Performance per watt 3 pt/W 18.61 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 28.44W

details

Pentium E2140  vs
Core i7 2620M 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 4
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nms 32 nms
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 8 27
Operating temperature Unknown - 61.4°C Unknown - 100°C

gpu

GPU None GPU
Label N/A HD 3000
Number of displays supported N/A 2
GPU clock speed N/A 650 MHz
Turbo clock speed N/A 1,300 MHz

bus

Architecture FSB DMI
Number of links 1 1
Intel Pentium E2140
Report a correction
Intel Core i7 2620M
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus