CPUBoss Review Our evaluation of E2160 vs E3400 among desktop CPUs (45 to 75W)

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

Fire Strike

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?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

Value

Are you paying a premium for performance?

Fire Strike, CompuBench 1.5 Bitcoin mining and 11 more

1.5

CPUBoss Score

Combination of all six facets

Winner
Intel Celeron E3400 

CPUBoss recommends the Intel Celeron E3400  based on its performance and single-core performance.

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 E2160

Reasons to consider the
Intel Pentium E2160

Report a correction
Much better overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.72 GHz vs 2.6 GHz Around 45% better overclocked clock speed (Water)
Front view of Intel Celeron E3400

Reasons to consider the
Intel Celeron E3400

Report a correction
Much higher clock speed 2.6 GHz vs 1.8 GHz Around 45% higher clock speed
Much better PassMark (Single core) score 1,038 vs 655 Around 60% better PassMark (Single core) score
Much better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score 2,275 vs 1,600 More than 40% better geekbench 2 (32-bit) score
Much newer manufacturing process 45 nm vs 65 nm A newer manufacturing process allows for a more powerful, yet cooler running processor
Much better performance per watt 1.64 pt/W vs 1.12 pt/W More than 45% better performance per watt
Much better overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.85 GHz vs 3.11 GHz Around 25% better overclocked clock speed (Air)
Has virtualization support Yes vs No Somewhat common; Boosts performance of virtual machines
Higher Maximum operating temperature 74.1 °C vs 73.3 °C Almost the same
Newer Jan, 2010 vs Jul, 2006 Release date over 3 years later

Benchmarks Real world tests of Pentium E2160 vs Celeron E3400

GeekBench 3 (Multi-core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (Single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench 3 (AES single core) Data courtesy Primate Labs

Pentium E2160
76,700 MB/s
Celeron E3400
110,600 MB/s

GeekBench (32-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench (64-bit) Data courtesy Primate Labs

GeekBench

PassMark Data courtesy Passmark

PassMark (Single Core)

Specifications Full list of technical specs

summary

Pentium E2160  vs
Celeron E3400 
Clock speed 1.8 GHz 2.6 GHz
Cores Dual core Dual core
Socket type
LGA 775

features

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

power consumption

TDP 65W 65W
Annual home energy cost 15.66 $/year 15.66 $/year
Annual commercial energy cost 56.94 $/year 56.94 $/year
Performance per watt 1.12 pt/W 1.64 pt/W
Typical power consumption 52.81W 52.81W

details

Pentium E2160  vs
Celeron E3400 
Architecture x86-64 x86-64
Threads 2 2
L2 cache 1 MB 1 MB
L2 cache per core 0.5 MB/core 0.5 MB/core
Manufacture process 65 nm 45 nm
Max CPUs 1 1
Clock multiplier 9 13
Voltage range 0.85 - 1.5V 0.85 - 1.36V
Operating temperature Unknown - 73.3°C Unknown - 74.1°C

overclocking

Overclocked clock speed 3.11 GHz 3.85 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Water) 3.72 GHz 2.6 GHz
Overclocked clock speed (Air) 3.11 GHz 3.85 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

bus

Architecture FSB FSB
Number of links 1 1
Clock speed 800 MHz 800 MHz
Intel Pentium E2160
Report a correction
Intel Celeron E3400
Report a correction

Comments

comments powered by Disqus