0 Comments
| Intel Pentium E2140 vs 4 630 |
Released April, 2007
Intel Pentium E2140
- 1.6 GHz
- Dual core
Reasons to buy the Intel Pentium E2140
![]() | Much newer manufacturing process 65 nm | ![]() | More cores 2 |
![]() | Significantly lower typical power consumption 52.81W | ![]() | Significantly lower annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year |
VS
Released October, 2005
Intel Pentium 4 630
- 3 GHz
- Single core
Reasons to buy the 4 630
![]() | Much higher clock speed 3 GHz | ![]() | Much more l2 cache 2 MB |
![]() | Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.83 GHz | ![]() | Much more l2 cache per core 2 MB/core |
Cast your vote Do you agree or disagree with CPUBoss?
VS
Differences What are the advantages of each
| |||||||
Much newer manufacturing process | 65 nm | vs | 90 nm | A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
More cores | 2 | vs | 1 | Twice as many cores; run more applications at once | |||
Significantly lower typical power consumption | 52.81W | vs | 68.25W | Around 25% lower typical power consumption | |||
Significantly lower annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | vs | 20.24 $/year | Around 25% lower annual home energy cost | |||
Significantly lower annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | vs | 73.58 $/year | Around 25% lower annual commercial energy cost | |||
Newer | Apr, 2007 | vs | Oct, 2005 | Release date over 1 years later | |||
| |||||||
Much higher clock speed | 3 GHz | vs | 1.6 GHz | More than 85% higher clock speed | |||
Much more l2 cache | 2 MB | vs | 1 MB | 2x more l2 cache; more data can be stored in the l2 cache for quick access later | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3.83 GHz | vs | 3 GHz | Around 30% better overclocked clock speed (Air) | |||
Much more l2 cache per core | 2 MB/core | vs | 0.5 MB/core | 4x more l2 cache per core | |||
Much higher Maximum operating temperature | 66.6 °C | vs | 61.4 °C | Around 10% higher Maximum operating temperature | |||
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) | 4.33 GHz | vs | 3.06 GHz | More than 40% better overclocked clock speed (Water) |
Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium E2140 vs 4 630
GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs
Pentium E2140
1,447
Pentium 4 630
882
GeekBench
Pentium E2140
1,771
Pentium 4 630
1,939
Specifications Full list of technical specs
summary | Pentium E2140 | vs | 4 630 |
---|---|---|---|
Clock speed | 1.6 GHz | 3 GHz | |
Cores | Dual core | Single core | |
Socket type | |||
LGA 775 | |||
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 | 65W | 84W | |
Annual home energy cost | 15.66 $/year | 20.24 $/year | |
Annual commercial energy cost | 56.94 $/year | 73.58 $/year | |
Typical power consumption | 52.81W | 68.25W | |
bus | |||
Architecture | FSB | FSB | |
Number of links | 1 | 1 | |
Clock speed | 800 MHz | 800 MHz |
details | Pentium E2140 | vs | 4 630 |
---|---|---|---|
Architecture | x86-64 | x86-64 | |
Threads | 2 | 2 | |
L2 cache | 1 MB | 2 MB | |
L2 cache per core | 0.5 MB/core | 2 MB/core | |
Manufacture process | 65 nm | 90 nm | |
Transistor count | 105,000,000 | 169,000,000 | |
Max CPUs | 1 | 1 | |
Clock multiplier | 8 | 15 | |
Voltage range | 0.85 - 1.5V | 1.2 - 1.4V | |
Operating temperature | Unknown - 61.4°C | Unknown - 66.6°C | |
overclocking | |||
Overclock popularity | 4 | 8 | |
Overclocked clock speed | 3 GHz | 3.83 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Water) | 3.06 GHz | 4.33 GHz | |
Overclocked clock speed (Air) | 3 GHz | 3.83 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 E2140 ![]() | Intel Pentium 4 630 ![]() |
Follow us
Compare
Related Comparisons
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$69 | ||
630 vs E6300 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$69 | $179 | |
630 vs E8400 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$69 | $163 | |
630 vs 945 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$69 | ||
630 vs 3200+ | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$69 | $54 | |
630 vs 355 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$69 | $74 | |
630 vs 820 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$67 | $179 | |
E2140 vs E8400 | ||
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 | ![]() |
$275 | $161 | |
4005U vs N3540 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$248 | $230 | |
4770K vs 9590 | ||
![]() | VS | ![]() |
$250 | $350 | |
6600K vs 6700K | ||